From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752053AbbEGN3y (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 May 2015 09:29:54 -0400 Received: from mga03.intel.com ([134.134.136.65]:1718 "EHLO mga03.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751342AbbEGN3w (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 May 2015 09:29:52 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.13,384,1427785200"; d="scan'208";a="567773738" Message-ID: <1431005389.1418.41.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] numa,sched: only consider less busy nodes as numa balancing destination From: Artem Bityutskiy Reply-To: dedekind1@gmail.com To: Rik van Riel Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mgorman@suse.de, peterz@infradead.org, jhladky@redhat.com Date: Thu, 07 May 2015 16:29:49 +0300 In-Reply-To: <20150506114128.0c846a37@cuia.bos.redhat.com> References: <1430908530.7444.145.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> <20150506114128.0c846a37@cuia.bos.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.10.4 (3.10.4-4.fc20) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2015-05-06 at 11:41 -0400, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Wed, 06 May 2015 13:35:30 +0300 > Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > > > we observe a tremendous regression between kernel version 3.16 and 3.17 > > (and up), and I've bisected it to this commit: > > > > a43455a sched/numa: Ensure task_numa_migrate() checks the preferred node > > Artem, Jirka, does this patch fix (or at least improve) the issues you > have been seeing? Does it introduce any new regressions? > > Peter, Mel, I think it may be time to stop waiting for the impedance > mismatch between the load balancer and NUMA balancing to be resolved, > and try to just avoid the issue in the NUMA balancing code... I'll give it a try as soon as I can and report back, thanks!