linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
Cc: Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.com>, Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Parth Shah <parth@linux.ibm.com>,
	Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 2/4] sched/numa: replace runnable_load_avg by load_avg
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 18:15:23 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAKfTPtB7W9x3YmYGH48DW=qnap+ZPq6to0sonovkmc-wAD1sVQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200213170220.GA3466@techsingularity.net>

On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 at 18:02, Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 05:38:31PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > > > Your test doesn't explicitly ensure that the 1 condition is met
> > > >
> > > > That being said, I'm not sure it's really a wrong thing ? I mean
> > > > load_balance will probably try to pull back some tasks on src but as
> > > > long as it is not a task with dst node as preferred node, it should
> > > > not be that harmfull
> > >
> > > My thinking was that if source has as many or more running tasks than
> > > the destination *after* the move that it's not harmful and does not add
> > > work for the load balancer.
> >
> > load_balancer will see an imbalance but fbq_classify_group/queue
> > should be there to prevent from pulling back tasks that are on the
> > preferred node but only other tasks
> >
>
> Yes, exactly. Between fbq_classify and migrate_degrades_locality, I'm
> expecting that the load balancer will only override NUMA balancing when
> there is no better option. When the imbalance check, I want to avoid
> the situation where NUMA balancing moves a task for locality, LB pulls
> it back for balance, NUMA retries the move etc because it's stupid. The
> locality matters but being continually dequeue/enqueue is unhelpful.
>
> While there might be grounds for relaxing the degree an imbalance is
> allowed across SD domains, I am avoiding looking in that direction again
> until the load balancer and NUMA balancer stop overriding each other for
> silly reasons (or the NUMA balancer fighting itself which can happen).

make sense

>
> --
> Mel Gorman
> SUSE Labs

  reply	other threads:[~2020-02-13 17:15 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-02-11 17:46 [PATCH 0/4] remove runnable_load_avg and improve group_classify Vincent Guittot
2020-02-11 17:46 ` [PATCH 1/4] sched/fair: reorder enqueue/dequeue_task_fair path Vincent Guittot
2020-02-12 13:20   ` Mel Gorman
2020-02-12 14:47     ` Vincent Guittot
2020-02-12 16:11       ` Mel Gorman
2020-02-11 17:46 ` [RFC 2/4] sched/numa: replace runnable_load_avg by load_avg Vincent Guittot
2020-02-12 13:37   ` Mel Gorman
2020-02-12 15:03     ` Vincent Guittot
2020-02-12 16:04       ` Mel Gorman
2020-02-12 19:49     ` Mel Gorman
2020-02-12 21:29       ` Mel Gorman
2020-02-13  8:05       ` Vincent Guittot
2020-02-13  9:24         ` Mel Gorman
     [not found]         ` <20200213131658.9600-1-hdanton@sina.com>
2020-02-13 13:46           ` Mel Gorman
2020-02-13 15:00             ` Phil Auld
2020-02-13 15:14               ` Mel Gorman
2020-02-13 16:11                 ` Vincent Guittot
2020-02-13 16:34                   ` Mel Gorman
2020-02-13 16:38                     ` Vincent Guittot
2020-02-13 17:02                       ` Mel Gorman
2020-02-13 17:15                         ` Vincent Guittot [this message]
2020-02-11 17:46 ` [RFC 3/4] sched/fair: replace runnable load average by runnable average Vincent Guittot
2020-02-12 14:30   ` Mel Gorman
2020-02-14  7:42     ` Vincent Guittot
2020-02-13 17:36   ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-02-14  7:43     ` Vincent Guittot
2020-02-11 17:46 ` [RFC 4/4] sched/fair: Take into runnable_avg to classify group Vincent Guittot
2020-02-13 18:32   ` Valentin Schneider
2020-02-13 18:37     ` Valentin Schneider
2020-02-14  7:48       ` Vincent Guittot
2020-02-11 21:04 ` [PATCH 0/4] remove runnable_load_avg and improve group_classify Mel Gorman
2020-02-12  8:16   ` Vincent Guittot

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='CAKfTPtB7W9x3YmYGH48DW=qnap+ZPq6to0sonovkmc-wAD1sVQ@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
    --cc=bsegall@google.com \
    --cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
    --cc=hdanton@sina.com \
    --cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=parth@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=pauld@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=valentin.schneider@arm.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 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).