From: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.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 16:15:05 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180912104505.GC5352@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180912093621.GY24106@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> [2018-09-12 11:36:21]:
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 12:24:10PM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
>
> > 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
>
> But that's not a fair comparison :/ You've complicated things by adding
> that second patch from Mel.
>
One patch does choose a idle thread over a possible swap. This is the one
that conflicts with "Avoid task migration for small numa improvement".
The other one detects if we have already found an idle thread and stops
iterating. So if we have already chosen a idle CPU, then dont iterate. So
this patch should ideally help the above patch.
My take on both the patches:
If there is a possible swap candidate (i.e if choosing a thread over idle is
better from a NUMA score improvement perspective), then it means the swap
candidate will benefit from movement. It means the swap candidate is not
running on its preferred node at this moment. If we don't do it, the swap
candidate will later on try migrating to its preferred node. We could avoid
that if we choose swap candidate over idle thread. Please note if the idle
and swap candidates yield the same NUMA score, then we still choose the idle
thread and not the swap candidate.
> Now you cannot (unambiguously) tell what the cause for the performance
> difference is.
>
The difference as I listed above is should we choose a swap candidate with
more NUMA score compared to idle thread.
My patch would hurt if there was an idle thread and we still iterate for
possible swap candidates and we dont find any. But that we cant speculate.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-09-12 10:45 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 [this message]
2018-09-12 9:57 ` Ingo Molnar
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=20180912104505.GC5352@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=riel@surriel.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.