[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YgP30sLEQfYPsMZE@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2022 18:20:18 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Nayak, K Prateek" <KPrateek.Nayak@....com>
Cc: "aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com" <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>,
"efault@....de" <efault@....de>,
"Shenoy, Gautham Ranjal" <gautham.shenoy@....com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"mgorman@...hsingularity.net" <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
"mingo@...nel.org" <mingo@...nel.org>,
"song.bao.hua@...ilicon.com" <song.bao.hua@...ilicon.com>,
"srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"valentin.schneider@....com" <valentin.schneider@....com>,
"vincent.guittot@...aro.org" <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Consider cpu affinity when allowing NUMA
imbalance in find_idlest_group
On Wed, Feb 09, 2022 at 03:14:32PM +0000, Nayak, K Prateek wrote:
> [AMD Official Use Only]
I think you need to invest in a new mail setup.
> > Where does this affinity come from?
>
> The affinity comes from limiting the process to a certain subset of
> available cpus by modifying the cpus_ptr member of task_struck
> via taskset or numactl.
That's obviously not an answer. Why is that done?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists