[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181022220509.GC3109@worktop.c.hoisthospitality.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 00:05:09 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Steven Sistare <steven.sistare@...cle.com>
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, subhra.mazumdar@...cle.com,
dhaval.giani@...cle.com, rohit.k.jain@...cle.com,
daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com, pavel.tatashin@...rosoft.com,
matt@...eblueprint.co.uk, umgwanakikbuti@...il.com,
riel@...hat.com, jbacik@...com, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/10] sched/fair: disable stealing if too many NUMA nodes
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 03:21:20PM -0400, Steven Sistare wrote:
> On 10/22/2018 2:47 PM, Steven Sistare wrote:
> > On 10/22/2018 1:06 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >> On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 07:59:40AM -0700, Steve Sistare wrote:
> >>> The STEAL feature causes regressions on hackbench on larger NUMA systems,
> >>> so disable it on systems with more than sched_steal_node_limit nodes
> >>> (default 2).
> >>
> >> How come? From a quick read the stealing is per LLC, where do we steal
> >> across nodes?
> >
> > See the complete explanation in this patch. It is deeper than can be gleaned
> > from a quick read.
>
> I should have said a bit more. Your quick take on stealing is correct, we do
> not steal across nodes. However, stealing reduces average run queue length which
> influences wake_affine migrations. Now see the complete explanation.
Right; read a bit more just now.
hackbench is a fairly poor benchmark for numa performance. One that
comes to mind is multi wharehouse specjbb stuff (assuming you have numa
balance enabled of course).
Powered by blists - more mailing lists