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=-0.9 required=3.0 tests=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 2752EC2BA83 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2020 16:14:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F28702082F for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2020 16:14:10 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linaro.org header.i=@linaro.org header.b="jb9F5htF" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728098AbgBLQOK (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Feb 2020 11:14:10 -0500 Received: from mail-lj1-f195.google.com ([209.85.208.195]:40511 "EHLO mail-lj1-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726728AbgBLQOI (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Feb 2020 11:14:08 -0500 Received: by mail-lj1-f195.google.com with SMTP id n18so2964223ljo.7 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2020 08:14:07 -0800 (PST) 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=0tcKPeVamvtlrN5RSH/6sRJOKOPqbnT+njiiXrnR2FE=; b=jb9F5htF3IHR2jF/s4ghJMuM4i/gcB51R39jS5/m6WKp+ydkzJfT04xG0Y73Oniy8v jXGY43W6LFKq1WsCfGVnTUgql5Rsoi8rTm4OjnsgouvKM528XjRv++J5z1ktbgXnaxjv DcdZO4N2qO2UIpsJgNlJN9HHASvrhD4jKNE1l9FpLfdA3+XV2xYgVqd/t3Pl9dU3lHUO NS2U6ybhnLxXAz5twY0Rw/BH05pfjJBJ8//FsvaNitbvsCdeMdaS6n1tgQUbqexBs4l4 GZp6UB6wHhoUEuC7NODSQJ6S00E67Bc2jXKNcueGfK599Evvdl26IRjAXjPN52010wEr DycQ== 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=0tcKPeVamvtlrN5RSH/6sRJOKOPqbnT+njiiXrnR2FE=; b=Q+6a+xNnF/PwNJWvhqkTxWLllIzvWllTVJxQYxwryNjN9bZMDN7id65mCYEXsgxOX8 C3Cj/ZGCC2FxK3WQmxbyljEqWRu9Q9b+F3AUIYVpiUaHXm37kEx3xYdKaAal4F+SeKht zWuGnPL0ra5Kpa3PICofmXQlzSAp5BfT3GYvQMmpwltwxiOHB5Q6YZuudhyT1gSo9sOG GAC1hIvVUo533k9BWSUUOT8oLEs6dUO2DEwU4f6HNtSGnp9FNf+440I0EyygITbz16iD 54f9JiJvuuAtW73/PcQrKzXlvrPMbM6zJ8yGONv+e+ISzQ4uFhcz0zeY6YdW/EOdAcZA gX6Q== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVom6smp3nUeceEjo4OymWH//xWfZwvcyyS28D1bxM09aMDJqlN A5/U2R80u7k1dEs6qfDSdSFj/cnt3DmHLmMDhrRu1g== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwUx2RtHdSeOxuAp36dMrleO/imyGInK7FYFJk2eU3wiQYyWc47tYUJS8FHowdnJCYuUNb8GkPXTepYvI4Y9gQ= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:96c6:: with SMTP id d6mr8306485ljj.4.1581524046440; Wed, 12 Feb 2020 08:14:06 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200212093654.4816-1-mgorman@techsingularity.net> <20200212154850.GQ3466@techsingularity.net> In-Reply-To: <20200212154850.GQ3466@techsingularity.net> From: Vincent Guittot Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2020 17:13:55 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/11] Reconcile NUMA balancing decisions with the load balancer To: Mel Gorman Cc: Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Juri Lelli , Dietmar Eggemann , Steven Rostedt , Ben Segall , Valentin Schneider , Phil Auld , LKML 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 Wed, 12 Feb 2020 at 16:48, Mel Gorman 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 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