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=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS 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 E1643C433DF for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 15:52:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC7262072D for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 15:52:53 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linaro.org header.i=@linaro.org header.b="NooWtfxj" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726825AbgHYPww (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Aug 2020 11:52:52 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:46534 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726149AbgHYPwv (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Aug 2020 11:52:51 -0400 Received: from mail-lj1-x243.google.com (mail-lj1-x243.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::243]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 407C7C061574 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 08:52:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lj1-x243.google.com with SMTP id f26so14367116ljc.8 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 08:52:51 -0700 (PDT) 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=rHSFQrjZHAaK6c2r2wcs6JOsgCtrTLBeAvyy7LBBQW4=; b=NooWtfxjikEFUBZ0gKwgvN1NRpBmGRbeeNzrO/+tkaSRBCJ0vKgjh4rx0jE1c+5a+l 6fFTRPm4m0oRNEbmMXCe2V8KLIhgRZbp4ZshbJ4NZLAnoxfemb/RfQKjX13N+cA3n0To CCM6JQp9tVXhvphsqCogPbsliHDRjyD4cOIhCJSDSo0oJXCJrXYWEh5qtP4V0bDQYu5C tHllRcZygSRpM1I7/YhhlObAWR4miqPgA9eNca5noAHD0TgnpZqSmP/jFKASuibRMsbq i+5KZOARgzhTjIFdVCs3BVNCTMezrlhuFVICrBvKrYVde/QrA+u6ZO1+ZymVmS6c6MiH Zq9g== 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=rHSFQrjZHAaK6c2r2wcs6JOsgCtrTLBeAvyy7LBBQW4=; b=pfUzho3CRm4/40Ztkh75yWtNUeKreINkcMzZ6bcT3lG/HerUO66FApYjko3pGAj/8C 2x7uzf4/C9VQTVFcm1r+NXt0eyIKOH3p0PChdSJLdqQH47WPzOGg8uzAS7heahjD41rh wMtVQiAMN1RGNPqDwTYHFkZkQUcvFY7ao46AMHQcUDc+aYlJgI/Mh6bz/ZfZblqShqqX Uwl/tTzv+/w/DJMqvrac1Xd5Oort1ar/ulsuRfCmrQlaqybaW1PIvCGtUteFK3mfnmHh gRvi9pB2ab4FCu+Cj1jkhQsZHNVpTNZZ6C4ZdsORx2ONjUssqjzFUM1uBkf8jpAARoya k1+A== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM53146dhNsDcqbIhBYvFF8or0Os8IHWKbAACj2iqWzNzVMG6+9ju2 Pl9fBcdBdvG1zPfEAnbYfeb2fEqgTJTfkjJviURiPQSDEeY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwdAb40aUYvsW3uCcBqK7XgBG/A3oSnYmuI/jvqjdbNSI2GdjS0lVAW1jrJVTYlb35qTwua+vVISbVNeS26kEQ= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:b045:: with SMTP id d5mr5474069ljl.111.1598370769636; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 08:52:49 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200825121818.30260-1-vincent.guittot@linaro.org> <20200825135841.GC3033@suse.de> In-Reply-To: <20200825135841.GC3033@suse.de> From: Vincent Guittot Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 17:52:38 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/numa: use runnable_avg to classify node To: Mel Gorman Cc: Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Juri Lelli , Dietmar Eggemann , Steven Rostedt , Ben Segall , linux-kernel 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, 25 Aug 2020 at 15:58, Mel Gorman wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 02:18:18PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: > > Use runnable_avg to classify numa node state similarly to what is done for > > normal load balancer. This helps to ensure that numa and normal balancers > > use the same view of the state of the system. > > > > - large arm64system: 2 nodes / 224 CPUs > > hackbench -l (256000/#grp) -g #grp > > > > grp tip/sched/core +patchset improvement > > 1 14,008(+/- 4,99 %) 13,800(+/- 3.88 %) 1,48 % > > 4 4,340(+/- 5.35 %) 4.283(+/- 4.85 %) 1,33 % > > 16 3,357(+/- 0.55 %) 3.359(+/- 0.54 %) -0,06 % > > 32 3,050(+/- 0.94 %) 3.039(+/- 1,06 %) 0,38 % > > 64 2.968(+/- 1,85 %) 3.006(+/- 2.92 %) -1.27 % > > 128 3,290(+/-12.61 %) 3,108(+/- 5.97 %) 5.51 % > > 256 3.235(+/- 3.95 %) 3,188(+/- 2.83 %) 1.45 % > > > > Intuitively the patch makes sense but I'm not a fan of using hackbench > for evaluating NUMA balancing. The tasks are too short-lived and it's > not sensitive enough to data placement because of the small footprint > and because hackbench tends to saturate a machine. > > As predicting NUMA balancing behaviour in your head can be difficult, I've > queued up a battery of tests on a few different NUMA machines and will see > what falls out. It'll take a few days as some of the tests are long-lived. Thanks for testing Mel > > Baseline will be 5.9-rc2 as I haven't looked at the topology rework in > tip/sched/core and this patch should not be related to it. looks fine to me > > -- > Mel Gorman > SUSE Labs