linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] sched/numa: Do not move imbalanced load purely on the basis of an idle CPU
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2018 11:57:42 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180912095742.GA3333@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180912065410.GA5352@linux.vnet.ibm.com>


* Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> * Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net> [2018-09-10 10:41:47]:
> 
> > On Fri, Sep 07, 2018 at 01:37:39PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > > Srikar's patch here:
> > > > 
> > > >   http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1533276841-16341-4-git-send-email-srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com
> > > > 
> > > > Also frobs this condition, but in a less radical way. Does that yield
> > > > similar results?
> > > 
> > > I can check. I do wonder of course if the less radical approach just means
> > > that automatic NUMA balancing and the load balancer simply disagree about
> > > placement at a different time. It'll take a few days to have an answer as
> > > the battery of workloads to check this take ages.
> > > 
> > 
> > Tests completed over the weekend and I've found that the performance of
> > both patches are very similar for two machines (both 2 socket) running a
> > variety of workloads. Hence, I'm not worried about which patch gets picked
> > up. However, I would prefer my own on the grounds that the additional
> > complexity does not appear to get us anything. Of course, that changes if
> > Srikar's tests on his larger ppc64 machines show the more complex approach
> > is justified.
> > 
> 
> Running SPECJbb2005. Higher bops are better.
> 
> Kernel A = 4.18+ 13 sched patches part of v4.19-rc1.
> Kernel B = Kernel A + 6 patches (http://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1533276841-16341-1-git-send-email-srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com)
> Kernel C = Kernel B - (Avoid task migration for small numa improvement) i.e
> 	http://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1533276841-16341-4-git-send-email-srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com
> 	+ 2 patches from Mel
> 	(Do not move imbalanced load purely)
> 	http://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20180907101139.20760-5-mgorman@techsingularity.net
> 	(Stop comparing tasks for NUMA placement)
> 	http://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20180907101139.20760-4-mgorman@techsingularity.net

We absolutely need the 'best' pre-regression baseline kernel measurements as well - was it 
vanilla v4.17?

Thanks,

	Ingo

  parent reply	other threads:[~2018-09-12  9:57 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-09-07 10:11 [PATCH 0/4] Follow-up fixes for v4.19-rc1 NUMA balancing Mel Gorman
2018-09-07 10:11 ` [PATCH 1/4] sched/numa: Remove redundant numa_stats nr_running field Mel Gorman
2018-09-07 10:11 ` [PATCH 2/4] sched/numa: Remove unused calculations in update_numa_stats Mel Gorman
2018-09-07 10:11 ` [PATCH 3/4] sched/numa: Stop comparing tasks for NUMA placement after selecting an idle core Mel Gorman
2018-09-07 13:05   ` Srikar Dronamraju
2018-09-07 14:20     ` Mel Gorman
2018-09-07 10:11 ` [PATCH 4/4] sched/numa: Do not move imbalanced load purely on the basis of an idle CPU Mel Gorman
2018-09-07 11:33   ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-09-07 12:37     ` Mel Gorman
2018-09-07 12:44       ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-09-07 13:42         ` Srikar Dronamraju
2018-09-07 14:28           ` Mel Gorman
2018-09-10  9:41       ` Mel Gorman
2018-09-12  6:54         ` Srikar Dronamraju
2018-09-12  9:36           ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-09-12 10:45             ` Srikar Dronamraju
2018-09-12  9:57           ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2018-09-12 10:27             ` Srikar Dronamraju
2018-09-12 10:57             ` Mel Gorman
2018-09-12 10:52           ` Mel Gorman
2018-09-07 11:24 ` [PATCH 0/4] Follow-up fixes for v4.19-rc1 NUMA balancing Peter Zijlstra
2018-09-07 12:29   ` Mel Gorman

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20180912095742.GA3333@gmail.com \
    --to=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=riel@surriel.com \
    --cc=srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).