From: Mel Gorman <email@example.com> To: Vincent Guittot <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: Ingo Molnar <email@example.com>, Peter Zijlstra <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Juri Lelli <email@example.com>, Dietmar Eggemann <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Steven Rostedt <email@example.com>, Ben Segall <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Valentin Schneider <email@example.com>, Phil Auld <firstname.lastname@example.org>, LKML <email@example.com> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/11] Reconcile NUMA balancing decisions with the load balancer Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2020 15:48:50 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20200212154850.GQ3466@techsingularity.net> (raw) In-Reply-To: <CAKfTPtA7LVe0wccghiQbRArfZZFz7xZwV3dsoQ_Jcdr4swVWZQ@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 02:22:03PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote: > Hi Mel, > > On Wed, 12 Feb 2020 at 10:36, Mel Gorman <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > > > The NUMA balancer makes placement decisions on tasks that partially > > take the load balancer into account and vice versa but there are > > inconsistencies. This can result in placement decisions that override > > each other leading to unnecessary migrations -- both task placement and > > page placement. This is a prototype series that attempts to reconcile the > > decisions. It's a bit premature but it would also need to be reconciled > > with Vincent's series "[PATCH 0/4] remove runnable_load_avg and improve > > group_classify" > > > > The first three patches are unrelated and are either pending in tip or > > should be but they were part of the testing of this series so I have to > > mention them. > > > > The fourth and fifth patches are tracing only and was needed to get > > sensible data out of ftrace with respect to task placement for NUMA > > balancing. Patches 6-8 reduce overhead and reduce the changes of NUMA > > balancing overriding itself. Patches 9-11 try and bring the CPU placement > > decisions of NUMA balancing in line with the load balancer. > > Don't know if it's only me but I can't find patches 9-11 on mailing list > I think my outgoing SMTP must have decided I was spamming. I tried resending just those patches. At the moment, I'm redoing a series in top of tip taking the tracing patches, yours on top (for testing) and the minor optimisations to see what that gets me. The reconcilation between NUMA balancing and load balancing (patches 9-11) can be redone on top if the rest look ok. -- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-02-12 15:48 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2020-02-12 9:36 Mel Gorman 2020-02-12 9:36 ` [PATCH 01/11] sched/fair: Allow a small load imbalance between low utilisation SD_NUMA domains Mel Gorman 2020-02-12 9:36 ` [PATCH 02/11] sched/fair: Optimize select_idle_core() Mel Gorman 2020-02-12 9:36 ` [PATCH 03/11] sched/fair: Allow a per-CPU kthread waking a task to stack on the same CPU, to fix XFS performance regression Mel Gorman 2020-02-12 9:36 ` [PATCH 04/11] sched/numa: Trace when no candidate CPU was found on the preferred node Mel Gorman 2020-02-12 9:36 ` [PATCH 05/11] sched/numa: Distinguish between the different task_numa_migrate failure cases Mel Gorman 2020-02-12 14:43 ` Steven Rostedt 2020-02-12 15:59 ` Mel Gorman 2020-02-12 9:36 ` [PATCH 06/11] sched/numa: Prefer using an idle cpu as a migration target instead of comparing tasks Mel Gorman 2020-02-12 9:36 ` [PATCH 07/11] sched/numa: Find an alternative idle CPU if the CPU is part of an active NUMA balance Mel Gorman 2020-02-12 9:36 ` [PATCH 08/11] sched/numa: Bias swapping tasks based on their preferred node Mel Gorman 2020-02-13 10:31 ` Peter Zijlstra 2020-02-13 11:18 ` Mel Gorman 2020-02-12 13:22 ` [RFC PATCH 00/11] Reconcile NUMA balancing decisions with the load balancer Vincent Guittot 2020-02-12 14:07 ` Valentin Schneider 2020-02-12 15:48 ` Mel Gorman [this message] 2020-02-12 16:13 ` Vincent Guittot 2020-02-12 15:45 ` [PATCH 09/11] sched/fair: Split out helper to adjust imbalances between domains Mel Gorman 2020-02-12 15:46 ` [PATCH 10/11] sched/numa: Use similar logic to the load balancer for moving between domains with spare capacity Mel Gorman 2020-02-12 15:46 ` [PATCH 11/11] sched/numa: Use similar logic to the load balancer for moving between overloaded domains Mel Gorman [not found] ` <email@example.com> 2020-02-14 7:50 ` [PATCH 08/11] sched/numa: Bias swapping tasks based on their preferred node 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=20200212154850.GQ3466@techsingularity.net \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --subject='Re: [RFC PATCH 00/11] Reconcile NUMA balancing decisions with the load balancer' \ /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).