[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150708135644.GC23380@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 15:56:45 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/numa: Restore sched feature NUMA to its earlier
avatar.
* Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> In commit:8a9e62a "sched/numa: Prefer NUMA hotness over cache hotness"
> sched feature NUMA was always set to true. However this sched feature was
> suppose to be enabled on NUMA boxes only thro set_numabalancing_state().
>
> To get back to the above behaviour, bring back NUMA_FAVOUR_HIGHER feature.
Three typos and a non-standard commit ID reference.
> /*
> + * NUMA_FAVOUR_HIGHER will favor moving tasks towards nodes where a
> + * higher number of hinting faults are recorded during active load
> + * balancing. It will resist moving tasks towards nodes where a lower
> + * number of hinting faults have been recorded.
> */
> -SCHED_FEAT(NUMA, true)
> +SCHED_FEAT(NUMA_FAVOUR_HIGHER, true)
> #endif
>
So the comment spells 'favor' American, the constant you introduce is British
spelling via 'FAVOUR'? Please use it consistently!
Also, this name is totally non-intuitive.
Make it something like NUMA_FAVOR_BUSY_NODES or so?
Also, I'm wondering how this can schedule in a stable fashion: if a non-busy node
is not favored, how can we end up there to start building up hinting faults?
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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