[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1431954418.3322.3.camel@twins>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 15:06:58 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: mingo@...nel.org, riel@...hat.com, dedekind1@...il.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mgorman@...e.de, rostedt@...dmis.org,
juri.lelli@....com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/4] sched, numa: Ignore pinned tasks
On Mon, 2015-05-18 at 18:30 +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> >
> > static void account_numa_dequeue(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p)
> > {
> > + if (p->nr_cpus_allowed == 1) {
> > + rq->nr_pinned_running--;
> > + WARN_ON_ONCE(p->numa_preferred_nid != -1);
> > + }
> > rq->nr_numa_running -= (p->numa_preferred_nid != -1);
> > rq->nr_preferred_running -= (p->numa_preferred_nid == task_node(p));
> > }
>
>
> Shouldnt we reset p->numa_preferred_nid when we are setting the allowed
> cpus in set_cpus_allowed_common()?
>
> Otherwise if an process is set a preferred node based on its numa faults
> but then is pinned to a different cpu, then we can see this warning.:w!
We should never get preferred_nid set when nr_cpus_allowed == 1, see the
hunk that changes task_tick_numa.
So we set preferred = -1 on pinning, do not partake in numa balancing
while this is so, therefore it should still be so when we dequeue,
right?
--
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