[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150518150947.GA5404@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 17:09:47 +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, May 18, 2015 at 07:59:40PM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > 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?
>
> lets say if a thread were to do a sched_setaffinity on itself ;
> would it not call account_numa_dequeue before account_numa_enqueue?
Yes, but it would call dequeue while nr_cpus_allowed was still the 'old'
value. And it will call enqueue when its the 'new' value.
> Also setting preferred = -1 in set_cpus_allowed avoids us from setting
> it at account_numa_enqueue. account_numa_enqueue() would probably be
> called more times than set_cpus_allowed.
This is true; and that makes sense.
--
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