Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752830Ab2KPSGf (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Nov 2012 13:06:35 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:10773 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752407Ab2KPSGe (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Nov 2012 13:06:34 -0500 Message-ID: <50A68096.1050208@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 13:06:14 -0500 From: Rik van Riel User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120827 Thunderbird/15.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Zijlstra CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Paul Turner , Lee Schermerhorn , Christoph Lameter , Mel Gorman , Andrew Morton , Andrea Arcangeli , Linus Torvalds , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/8] sched, numa, mm: Add adaptive NUMA affinity support References: <20121112160451.189715188@chello.nl> <20121112161215.782018877@chello.nl> In-Reply-To: <20121112161215.782018877@chello.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1307 Lines: 32 On 11/12/2012 11:04 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > We change the load-balancer to prefer moving tasks in order of: > > 1) !numa tasks and numa tasks in the direction of more faults > 2) allow !ideal tasks getting worse in the direction of faults > 3) allow private tasks to get worse > 4) allow shared tasks to get worse > > This order ensures we prefer increasing memory locality but when > we do have to make hard decisions we prefer spreading private > over shared, because spreading shared tasks significantly > increases the interconnect bandwidth since not all memory can > follow. Combined with the fact that we only turn a certain amount of memory into NUMA ptes each second, could this result in a program being classified as a private task one second, and a shared task a few seconds later? What does the code do to prevent such an oscillating of task classification? (which would have consequences for the way the task's NUMA placement is handled, and might result in the task moving from node to node needlessly) -- All rights reversed -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/