[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140425090959.GC23991@suse.de>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 10:09:59 +0100
From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
To: riel@...hat.com
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
peterz@...radead.org, chegu_vinod@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] sched,numa: do not set preferred_node on migration
to a second choice node
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 01:00:29PM -0400, riel@...hat.com wrote:
> From: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
>
> Setting the numa_preferred_node for a task in task_numa_migrate
> does nothing on a 2-node system. Either we migrate to the node
> that already was our preferred node, or we stay where we were.
>
> On a 4-node system, it can slightly decrease overhead, by not
> calling the NUMA code as much. Since every node tends to be
> directly connected to every other node, running on the wrong
> node for a while does not do much damage.
>
Guess what size of machine I do the vast bulk of testing of automatic
NUMA balancing on!
> However, on an 8 node system, there are far more bad nodes
> than there are good ones, and pretending that a second choice
> is actually the preferred node can greatly delay, or even
> prevent, a workload from converging.
>
> The only time we can safely pretend that a second choice
> node is the preferred node is when the task is part of a
> workload that spans multiple NUMA nodes.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
> Tested-by: Vinod Chegu <chegu_vinod@...com>
Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
--
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