All of lore.kernel.org
 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 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.