From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 022D0C43331 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 15:40:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C997F21925 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 15:40:36 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linaro.org header.i=@linaro.org header.b="jfAjV9pe" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727262AbfKLPkf (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Nov 2019 10:40:35 -0500 Received: from mail-lj1-f196.google.com ([209.85.208.196]:45010 "EHLO mail-lj1-f196.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726980AbfKLPkf (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Nov 2019 10:40:35 -0500 Received: by mail-lj1-f196.google.com with SMTP id g3so18286648ljl.11 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 07:40:32 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Zu0KReonp/Dvh814/aR49/dIUTQPkHFLFvLTh9BjBJU=; b=jfAjV9pe3qHgAPYXC5bDWCM6SehVsqSrXaCyvKhOT+teEhUMll9b1VNsEeMotXM2fI RX85n4pFKuzyrnSnd9lylg3PQuLfzIM1r6Juo28sJGwTM4u3hKhaWC6F3qDkZztXqfmq 06fB86V3nYiLkZFWvIgH4qFOHKeFDtNQqgPSH8sOLUasj09jjdiwJZ7dsCOw8A9VStFD 0ajLXfrCKcnhq4V3PNOCwbIa+4vWgABN4Abv0YIElqpFZB+XAHzA3my6B25btWKS140X eD2M+ibGqnB4XtWq7R0ZjyT6XB7ERFqjNkjtlE+VWCGWFMfx5BWHUNTwONHLaYgt0Sjd z76g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Zu0KReonp/Dvh814/aR49/dIUTQPkHFLFvLTh9BjBJU=; b=FDFytUtHOFSgBgSeuzMXEOxCXlx9YrEyBhoIo+2ZKNCucqPDcDSZwx/njib+kY1dxP N9ThcidWD4+hBd9iZZ0dNUW+ItWTV1HtJnUsKkh3bF5+n1LjEFi0ivzgj0pebi10U+92 t/ugxu9yzJ3/yRizJ5XGe1GutTD8yotdytP0HZGLULLbIRlBZUxWCqSXWFjDrFCVrTzL I3L+STWCAisxls26laPNrLttuGJClIYDa/yl1Pcy6GoPad1KIIwzZcVYhsY6ySwcDedi 1NSp2SnPU5+9k/JDYXHFrk4/IVChMR71l8XOREevgYOXvP4EBfmvZtR6kJ59O5+g2A4f zkDA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVPQwTZN3uNZmIPA4ZpU3len0taplkFN52b+O6VSLFEOKlH7jYT Eds5M2RWZH5hCRBuivF3Gf7oi5IaYIJxQ8RHqVgQ4A== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwzurXFq2vYxkN+AxLmD0lXELsNpIBZBEVylzp+vmL5gLlTHMi3AZmeS0zcudig8jwrOU7gq49Oiu1uTq7CgpA= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:b0e3:: with SMTP id h3mr6762612ljl.193.1573573231629; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 07:40:31 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1571405198-27570-1-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org> <1571405198-27570-5-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org> <20191030154534.GJ3016@techsingularity.net> <20191031101544.GP3016@techsingularity.net> <20191031114020.GQ3016@techsingularity.net> <20191108163501.GA26528@linaro.org> <20191108183730.GU3016@techsingularity.net> <20191112105830.GA8765@linaro.org> <20191112150636.GX3016@techsingularity.net> In-Reply-To: <20191112150636.GX3016@techsingularity.net> From: Vincent Guittot Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2019 16:40:20 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 04/11] sched/fair: rework load_balance To: Mel Gorman Cc: linux-kernel , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Phil Auld , Valentin Schneider , Srikar Dronamraju , Quentin Perret , Dietmar Eggemann , Morten Rasmussen , Hillf Danton , Parth Shah , Rik van Riel Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 12 Nov 2019 at 16:06, Mel Gorman wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 11:58:30AM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote: > > > This roughly matches what I've seen. The interesting part to me for > > > netperf is the next section of the report that reports the locality of > > > numa hints. With netperf on a 2-socket machine, it's generally around > > > 50% as the client/server are pulled apart. Because netperf is not > > > heavily memory bound, it doesn't have much impact on the overall > > > performance but it's good at catching the cross-node migrations. > > > > Ok. I didn't want to make my reply too long. I have put them below for > > the netperf-tcp results: > > 5.3-rc2 5.3-rc2 > > tip +rwk+fix > > Ops NUMA alloc hit 60077762.00 60387907.00 > > Ops NUMA alloc miss 0.00 0.00 > > Ops NUMA interleave hit 0.00 0.00 > > Ops NUMA alloc local 60077571.00 60387798.00 > > Ops NUMA base-page range updates 5948.00 17223.00 > > Ops NUMA PTE updates 5948.00 17223.00 > > Ops NUMA PMD updates 0.00 0.00 > > Ops NUMA hint faults 4639.00 14050.00 > > Ops NUMA hint local faults % 2073.00 6515.00 > > Ops NUMA hint local percent 44.69 46.37 > > Ops NUMA pages migrated 1528.00 4306.00 > > Ops AutoNUMA cost 23.27 70.45 > > > > Thanks -- it was "NUMA hint local percent" I was interested in and the > 46.37% local hinting faults is likely indicative of the client/server > being load balanced across SD_NUMA domains without NUMA Balancing being > aggressive enough to fix it. At least I know I am not just seriously > unlucky or testing magical machines! I agree that the collaboration between load balanced across SD_NUMA level and NUMA balancing should be improved It's also interesting to notice that the patchset doesn't seem to do worse than the baseline: 46.37% vs 44.69% Vincent > > -- > Mel Gorman > SUSE Labs