[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7de25e1b-e548-b8b5-dda5-6a2e001f3c1a@bytedance.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2021 18:40:43 +0800
From: Gang Li <ligang.bdlg@...edance.com>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PATCH v1] sched/numa: add per-process numa_balancing
On 11/9/21 5:19 PM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 09, 2021 at 04:28:28PM +0800, Gang Li wrote:
>> If the global tuning affects default behaviour and the prctl
>> affects specific behaviour. Then when prctl specifies
>> numa_balancing for a process, there is no way for the
>> global tuning to affect that process.
>
> While I think it's very likely that the common case will be to disable
> NUMA balancing for specific processes,
> prctl(PR_NUMA_BALANCING,PR_SET_NUMA_BALANCING,1) should still be
> meaningful.
>
I'm still a bit confused.
If we really want to enable/disable numa_balancing for all processes,
but some of them override the global numa_balancing using prctl, what
should we do?
Do we iterate through these processes to enable/disable them individually?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists