[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c85b5868-150f-7114-18cd-a5e9cd55f406@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 11:44:48 +0800
From: 王贇 <yun.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: hannes@...xchg.org, mhocko@...nel.org, vdavydov.dev@...il.com,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, mcgrof@...nel.org, keescook@...omium.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, riel@...riel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] numa: introduce numa cling feature
On 2019/7/12 下午4:58, 王贇 wrote:
[snip]
>
> I see, we should not override the decision of select_idle_sibling().
>
> Actually the original design we try to achieve is:
>
> let wake affine select the target
> try find idle sibling of target
> if got one
> pick it
> else if task cling to prev
> pick prev
>
> That is to consider wake affine superior to numa cling.
>
> But after rethinking maybe this is not necessary, since numa cling is
> also some kind of strong wake affine hint, actually maybe even a better
> one to filter out the bad cases.
>
> I'll try change @target instead and give a retest then.
We now leave select_idle_sibling() untouched, instead prevent numa swap
with task cling to dst, and stop wake affine when curr & prev cpu are on
different node and wakee cling to prev.
Retesting show a even better results, benchmark like dbench also show 1%~5%
improvement, not stable but always improved now :-)
Regards,
Michael Wang
>
> Regards,
> Michael Wang
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists