[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180723152147.GE2494@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2018 17:21:47 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/19] Fixes for sched/numa_balancing
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 08:09:55AM -0700, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > > sched/numa: Stop multiple tasks from moving to the cpu at the same time
>
> This patch has go-ahead from Mel and Rik and no outstanding comments.
I left it out because it's part of the big xchg() mess.
In particular:
+ if (xchg(&rq->numa_migrate_on, 1))
+ return;
+
+ if (env->best_cpu != -1) {
+ rq = cpu_rq(env->best_cpu);
+ WRITE_ONCE(rq->numa_migrate_on, 0);
+ }
I'm again confused by clearing numa_migrate_on at this point..
> > > sched/numa: Updation of scan period need not be in lock
>
> I didnt see any comments for this apart from an ack from Rik.
> + It thought it was trivial and shouldnt have any side-effect.
Oh, my bad I actually have this one.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists