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=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 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 03B25C7618F for ; Fri, 19 Jul 2019 16:47:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB14F21873 for ; Fri, 19 Jul 2019 16:47:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728629AbfGSQrP convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Jul 2019 12:47:15 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:43608 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727528AbfGSQrP (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Jul 2019 12:47:15 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80171AF9C; Fri, 19 Jul 2019 16:47:13 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2019 18:47:11 +0200 From: Michal =?iso-8859-1?Q?Koutn=FD?= To: =?utf-8?B?546L6LSH?= Cc: keescook@chromium.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org, vdavydov.dev@gmail.com, Peter Zijlstra , mcgrof@kernel.org, mhocko@kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Ingo Molnar , riel@surriel.com, Mel Gorman , cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] numa: introduce per-cgroup numa balancing locality, statistic Message-ID: <20190719164711.GB854@blackbody.suse.cz> References: <60b59306-5e36-e587-9145-e90657daec41@linux.alibaba.com> <3ac9b43a-cc80-01be-0079-df008a71ce4b@linux.alibaba.com> <20190711134754.GD3402@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20190712075815.GN3402@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <37474414-1a54-8e3a-60df-eb7e5e1cc1ed@linux.alibaba.com> <20190712094214.GR3402@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20190715121025.GN9035@blackbody.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 10:41:36AM +0800, 王贇 wrote: > Actually whatever the memory node sets or cpu allow sets is, it will > take effect on task's behavior regarding memory location and cpu > location, while the locality only care about the results rather than > the sets. My previous response missed much of the context, so it was a bit off. I see what you mean by the locality now. Alas, I can't assess whether it's the right thing to do regarding NUMA behavior that you try to optimize (i.e. you need an answer from someone more familiar with NUMA balancing). Michal