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: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	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>,
	Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
	Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/11] Reconcile NUMA balancing decisions with the load balancer
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2020 17:13:55 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAKfTPtDG+nxaBQFubfHC_LGxPwtJcR3xY5oS4-i-SkqrvPSwcw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200212154850.GQ3466@techsingularity.net>

On Wed, 12 Feb 2020 at 16:48, Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net> wrote:
>
> 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 <mgorman@techsingularity.net> 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.

I received them.
Thanks

>
> 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

  reply	other threads:[~2020-02-12 16:14 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
2020-02-12 16:13     ` Vincent Guittot [this message]
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] ` <20200214041232.18904-1-hdanton@sina.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=CAKfTPtDG+nxaBQFubfHC_LGxPwtJcR3xY5oS4-i-SkqrvPSwcw@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
    --cc=bsegall@google.com \
    --cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
    --cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=pauld@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=valentin.schneider@arm.com \
    --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).