[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <536CF0CD.2090504@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 09 May 2014 11:14:21 -0400
From: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org, mgorman@...e.de,
chegu_vinod@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] sched,numa: weigh nearby nodes for task placement
on complex NUMA topologies
On 05/09/2014 05:53 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 01:23:29PM -0400, riel@...hat.com wrote:
>> + /*
>> + * For nodes with distances in-between LOCAL_DISTANCE
>> + * and max_distance, we count the faults on those nodes
>> + * in proportion to their distance, using this formula:
>> + *
>> + * max_distance - node_distance
>> + * -----------------------------
>> + * max_distance - LOCAL_DISTANCE
>> + */
>> + if (task)
>> + faults = task_faults(p, node);
>> + else
>> + faults = group_faults(p, node);
>> +
>> + score += 1000 * faults *
>> + (max_distance - distance) /
>> + (max_distance - LOCAL_DISTANCE);
>
> OK that makes sense, except I would suggest you use a power-of-two scale
> factor :-)
I guess we could build a NUMA distance table that
counts the number of hops, and use that.
That is likely to result in better/easier values
for grouping than the (somewhat arbitrary) distances
in the SLIT table, anyway...
--
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