[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220209104625.GM23216@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2022 11:46:25 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@....com>
Cc: aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com, efault@....de, gautham.shenoy@....com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mgorman@...hsingularity.net,
mingo@...nel.org, song.bao.hua@...ilicon.com,
srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, valentin.schneider@....com,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Consider cpu affinity when allowing NUMA
imbalance in find_idlest_group
On Mon, Feb 07, 2022 at 09:29:21PM +0530, K Prateek Nayak wrote:
> Neither the sched/tip nor Mel's v5 patchset [1] provides an optimal
> new-task wakeup strategy when the tasks are affined to a subset of cpus
> which can result in piling of tasks on the same set of CPU in a NUMA
> group despite there being other cpus in a different NUMA group where the
> task could have run in.
Where does this affinity come from?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists