All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
To: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Fix numabalancing to work with isolated cpus
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 09:09:30 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170405080930.vzz6wd7qfhvjckpb@techsingularity.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170405015006.GA4941@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 07:20:06AM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > > 
> > > To avoid this, please check for isolated cpus before choosing a target
> > > cpu.
> > > 
> > 
> > Hmm, would this also prevent a task running inside a cgroup that is
> > allowed accessed to isolated CPUs from balancing? I severely doubt it
> 
> Scheduler doesn't do any kind of load balancing for isolated cpus.
> 

I was referring specifically to numa balancing, not load balancing but I
should have been clearer.

> > matters because if a process is isolated from interference then it
> > follows that automatic NUMA balancing should not be involved. If
> 
> Yes, as an extension of the above, numa balancing should not be
> involved.
> 

If anything, it arguably is a more sensible fix. If tasks on isolated CPUs
should not be interfered with then that should include the NUMA scanner
running in task context. IIf the PTEs are not updated then the faults are
not incurred which would be a much larger saving in overhead overall. There
would be a potential corner case where two threads in the same address
space run in separate cpusets but it would be somewhat of an odd cornercase.

-- 
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs

  reply	other threads:[~2017-04-05  8:09 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-04-04 17:27 Srikar Dronamraju
2017-04-04 18:56 ` Rik van Riel
2017-04-04 20:37 ` Mel Gorman
2017-04-05  1:50   ` Srikar Dronamraju
2017-04-05  8:09     ` Mel Gorman [this message]
2017-04-05 12:57 ` Michal Hocko
2017-04-05 15:22   ` Srikar Dronamraju
2017-04-05 16:44     ` Michal Hocko
2017-04-06  7:19       ` Srikar Dronamraju
2017-04-06  7:34         ` Michal Hocko
2017-04-06  9:23           ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-06 10:13             ` Michal Hocko
2017-04-06 10:29               ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-06 10:42                 ` Michal Hocko
2017-04-06 10:47                   ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-06 13:44                     ` Michal Hocko
2017-04-06  7:36 ` Mike Galbraith
2017-04-06  7:36 ` Peter Zijlstra

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=20170405080930.vzz6wd7qfhvjckpb@techsingularity.net \
    --to=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=riel@redhat.com \
    --cc=srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH] sched: Fix numabalancing to work with isolated cpus' \
    /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

This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.