[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190719164711.GB854@blackbody.suse.cz>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2019 18:47:11 +0200
From: Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>
To: 王贇 <yun.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc: keescook@...omium.org, hannes@...xchg.org, vdavydov.dev@...il.com,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, mcgrof@...nel.org,
mhocko@...nel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, riel@...riel.com,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] numa: introduce per-cgroup numa balancing locality,
statistic
On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 10:41:36AM +0800, 王贇 <yun.wang@...ux.alibaba.com> wrote:
> Actually whatever the memory node sets or cpu allow sets is, it will
> take effect on task's behavior regarding memory location and cpu
> location, while the locality only care about the results rather than
> the sets.
My previous response missed much of the context, so it was a bit off.
I see what you mean by the locality now. Alas, I can't assess whether
it's the right thing to do regarding NUMA behavior that you try to
optimize (i.e. you need an answer from someone more familiar with NUMA
balancing).
Michal
Powered by blists - more mailing lists