linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm, numa: Migrate pages to local nodes quicker early in the lifetime of a task

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-Id: <20181003131549.GB4488@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:   Wed, 3 Oct 2018 18:45:49 +0530
From:   Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Jirka Hladky <jhladky@...hat.com>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm, numa: Migrate pages to local nodes quicker early
 in the lifetime of a task

> > if we want to prioritize STREAM like workloads (i.e private faults) one simpler
> > fix could be to change the quadtraic equation
> > 
> > from:
> > 	if (!cpupid_pid_unset(last_cpupid) &&
> > 				cpupid_to_nid(last_cpupid) != dst_nid)
> > 		return false;
> > to:
> > 	if (!cpupid_pid_unset(last_cpupid) &&
> > 				cpupid_to_nid(last_cpupid) == dst_nid)
> > 		return true;
> > 
> > i.e to say if the group tasks likely consolidated to a node or the task was
> > moved to a different node but access were private, just move the memory.
> > 
> > The drawback though is we keep pulling memory everytime the task moves
> > across nodes. (which is probably restricted for long running tasks to some
> > extent by your fix)
> > 
> 
> This has way more consequences as it changes the behaviour for the entire
> lifetime of the workload. It could cause excessive migrations in the case
> where a machine is almost fully utilised and getting load balanced or in
> cases where tasks are pulled frequently cross-node (e.g. worker thread
> model or a pipelined computation).
> 
> I'm only looking to address the case where the load balancer spreads a
> workload early and the memory should move to the new node quickly. If it
> turns out there are cases where that decision is wrong, it gets remedied
> quickly but if your proposal is ever wrong, the system doesn't recover.
> 

Agree.

-- 
Thanks and Regards
Srikar Dronamraju