[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130801155151.GH2296@suse.de>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 16:51:51 +0100
From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/18] Basic scheduler support for automatic NUMA
balancing V5
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 06:39:03PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 05:11:41PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > RSS was another option it felt as arbitrary as a plain delay.
>
> Right, it would avoid 'small' programs getting scanning done with the
> rationale that their cost isn't that large since they don't have much
> memory to begin with.
>
Yeah, but it's not necessarily true. Whatever value we pick there can be
an openmp process that fits in there.
> The same can be said for tasks that don't run much -- irrespective of
> how much absolute runtime they've gathered.
>
> Is there any other group of tasks that we do not want to scan?
>
strcmp(p->comm, ....)
> Maybe if we can list all the various exclusions we can get to a proper
> quantifier that way.
>
> So far we've got:
>
> - doesn't run long
> - doesn't run much
> - doesn't have much memory
>
- does not have sysV shm sections
> > Should I revert 5bca23035391928c4c7301835accca3551b96cc2 with an
> > explanation that it potentially is completely useless in the purely
> > multi-process shared case?
>
> Yeah I suppose so..
Will do.
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists