[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c03e21a0-7b7d-40ca-b1e8-71c4c3d59525@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2025 00:22:26 +0530
From: Madadi Vineeth Reddy <vineethr@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Chuyi Zhou <zhouchuyi@...edance.com>
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de,
vschneid@...hat.com, longman@...hat.com, riel@...riel.com,
chengming.zhou@...ux.dev, kprateek.nayak@....com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Madadi Vineeth Reddy <vineethr@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] sched/fair: Ignore isolated cpus in
update_numa_stat
On 03/01/25 12:29, Chuyi Zhou wrote:
> Now update_numa_stats() iterates each cpu in a node to gather load
> information for the node and attempts to find the idle cpu as a candidate
> best_cpu within the node.
>
> In update_numa_stats() we should take into account the scheduling domain.
> This is because the "isolcpus" kernel command line option and cpuset iso-
> late partitions can remove CPUs from load balance. Similar to task wakeup
> and periodic load balancing, we should not involve isolated CPUs in NUMA
> balancing. When gathering load information for nodes, we need to ignore the
> load of isolated CPUs. This change also avoids selecting an isolated CPU
> as the idle_cpu.
If possible, would you be able to share any performance metrics or benchmarks
that demonstrate the impact of this patch on NUMA balancing or CPU migration
efficiency?
Thanks,
Madadi Vineeth Reddy
>
> Signed-off-by: Chuyi Zhou <zhouchuyi@...edance.com>
> ---
> kernel/sched/fair.c | 7 +++++--
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists