linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] numa,sched: only consider less busy nodes as numa balancing destination

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1431005389.1418.41.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com>
Date:	Thu, 07 May 2015 16:29:49 +0300
From:	Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com>
To:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mgorman@...e.de,
	peterz@...radead.org, jhladky@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] numa,sched: only consider less busy nodes as numa
 balancing destination

On Wed, 2015-05-06 at 11:41 -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Wed, 06 May 2015 13:35:30 +0300
> Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com> wrote:
> 
> > we observe a tremendous regression between kernel version 3.16 and 3.17
> > (and up), and I've bisected it to this commit:
> > 
> > a43455a sched/numa: Ensure task_numa_migrate() checks the preferred node
> 
> Artem, Jirka, does this patch fix (or at least improve) the issues you
> have been seeing?  Does it introduce any new regressions?
> 
> Peter, Mel, I think it may be time to stop waiting for the impedance
> mismatch between the load balancer and NUMA balancing to be resolved,
> and try to just avoid the issue in the NUMA balancing code...

I'll give it a try as soon as I can and report back, thanks!

--
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/