Re: [RFC][PATCH 14/26] sched, numa: Numa balancer

[Rik van Riel]

On 07/09/2012 08:40 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 14:23 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > It is not yet clear to me how and why your code converges.
> >
> > I don't think it does.. but since the scheduler interaction is fairly
> > weak it doesn't matter too much from that pov.

Fair enough. It is just that you asked this same question
about Andrea's code, and I was asking myself that question
while reading your code (and failing to figure it out).

> That is,.. it slowly moves along with the cpu usage, only if there's a
> lot of remote memory allocations (memory pressure) things get funny.
>
> It'll try and rotate all tasks around a bit trying, but there's no good
> solution for a memory hole on one node and a cpu hole on another, you're
> going to have to take the remote hits.

Agreed, I suspect both your code and Andrea's code will
end up behaving fairly similarly in that situation.

> Again.. what do we want it to do?

That is a good question.

We can have various situations to deal with:

1) tasks fit nicely inside NUMA nodes
2) some tasks have more memory than what fits
   in a NUMA node
3) some tasks have more threads than what fits
   in a NUMA node
4) a combination of the above

I guess what we want the NUMA code to do to increase
the number of local memory accesses for each thread,
and do so in a relatively light weight way.

--
All rights reversed
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/