[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1528142755.7898.122.camel@surriel.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2018 16:05:55 -0400
From: Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>
To: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/19] sched/numa: Detect if node actively handling
migration
On Mon, 2018-06-04 at 15:30 +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> @@ -1554,6 +1562,9 @@ static void task_numa_compare(struct
> task_numa_env *env,
> if (READ_ONCE(dst_rq->numa_migrate_on))
> return;
>
> + if (*move && READ_ONCE(pgdat->active_node_migrate))
> + *move = false;
Why not do this check in task_numa_find_cpu?
That way you won't have to pass this in as a
pointer, and you also will not have to recalculate
NODE_DATA(cpu_to_node(env->dst_cpu)) for every CPU.
> /*
> + * If the numa importance is less than SMALLIMP,
^^^ numa improvement
> + * task migration might only result in ping pong
> + * of tasks and also hurt performance due to cache
> + * misses.
> + */
> + if (imp < SMALLIMP || imp <= env->best_imp + SMALLIMP / 2)
> + goto unlock;
I can see a use for the first test, but why limit the
search for the best score once you are past the
threshold?
I don't understand the use for that second test.
What workload benefits from it?
--
All Rights Reversed.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists