linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6/6] sched/numa: Delay retrying placement for automatic NUMA balance after wake

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20180213151033.GP25201@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Tue, 13 Feb 2018 16:10:33 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
        Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>,
        Giovanni Gherdovich <ggherdovich@...e.cz>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] sched/numa: Delay retrying placement for automatic
 NUMA balance after wake_affine

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 03:00:20PM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 03:43:26PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > 
> > > Well, it was deliberate. While it's possible to be on the same memory
> > > node and not sharing cache, the scheduler typically is more concerned with
> > > the LLC than NUMA per-se. If they share LLC, then I also assume that they
> > > share memory locality.
> > 
> > True, but the remaining code only has effect for numa balance, which is
> > concerned with nodes. So I don't see the point of using something
> > potentially smaller.
> > 
> > Suppose someone did hardware where a node has 2 cache clusters, then
> > we'd still set a wake_affine back-off for numa-balance, even though it
> > remains on the same node.
> > 
> > How would that be useful?
> 
> Fair point, it could be unexpected from a NUMA balancing perspective and
> sub-numa clustering does exist so it's a potential issue. I'm happy to
> change it to cpu_to_node. I can resend the series if you prefer but feel
> free to change it in-place if you're picking it up. I do not expect any
> change on the machines I tested with as for all of them LLC was equivalent
> to checking the node ID.

OK, changed it locally. Thanks!