[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180723164735.GI2494@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2018 18:47:35 +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 09:29:54AM -0700, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> [2018-07-23 17:21:47]:
>
> > 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..
>
> First task choose a cpu to swap/migrate, sets the cpu to best_cpu and
> also numa_migrate_on. Next it finds a better cpu to swap/move. Now if
> the task is able to move to the better cpu, then it should clear
> numa_migrate_on on the previous best_cpu.
>
> If we dont reset numa_migrate_on on finding a better cpu, the
> numa_migrate_on stays set for the previous cpu, causing previous cpu to
> never be a target of numa balance.
Don't tell me, write better patches.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists