[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87tuc9kxc0.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2022 10:11:11 +0800
From: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -V3 2/2 UPDATE] NUMA balancing: avoid to migrate task to
CPU-less node
Hi, Peter,
"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com> writes:
> In a typical memory tiering system, there's no CPU in slow (PMEM) NUMA
> nodes. But if the number of the hint page faults on a PMEM node is
> the max for a task, The current NUMA balancing policy may try to place
> the task on the PMEM node instead of DRAM node. This is unreasonable,
> because there's no CPU in PMEM NUMA nodes. To fix this, CPU-less
> nodes are ignored when searching the migration target node for a task
> in this patch.
>
> To test the patch, we run a workload that accesses more memory in PMEM
> node than memory in DRAM node. Without the patch, the PMEM node will
> be chosen as preferred node in task_numa_placement(). While the DRAM
> node will be chosen instead with the patch.
>
> Known issue: I don't have systems to test complex NUMA topology type,
> for example, NUMA_BACKPLANE or NUMA_GLUELESS_MESH.
>
> v3:
>
> - Fix a boot crash for some uncovered marginal condition. Thanks Qian
> Cai for reporting and testing the bug!
>
> - Fix several missing places to use CPU-less nodes as migrating
> target.
>
> Signed-off-by: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
> Reported-and-tested-by: Qian Cai <quic_qiancai@...cinc.com> # boot crash
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> Cc: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
> Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
> Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>
> Cc: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Can you update the patch to fix the bug? Or you prefer the incremental
patch?
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
Powered by blists - more mailing lists