Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752756AbbBWPqo (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 23 Feb 2015 10:46:44 -0500
Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:40494 "EHLO mx2.suse.de"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1751948AbbBWPqm (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 23 Feb 2015 10:46:42 -0500
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 15:46:37 +0000
From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
To: Dario Faggioli <dario.faggioli@citrix.com>
Cc: "torvalds@linux-foundation.org" <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        David Vrabel <david.vrabel@citrix.com>,
        "Xen-devel@lists.xen.org" <Xen-devel@lists.xen.org>,
        Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] NUMA_BALANCING and Xen PV guest regression in
 3.20-rc0
Message-ID: <20150223154637.GX3087@suse.de>
References: <54E5DFED.9050700@citrix.com>
 <20150219170104.GS3087@suse.de>
 <1424704425.5819.38.camel@citrix.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1424704425.5819.38.camel@citrix.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2239
Lines: 71

On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 03:13:48PM +0000, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> 
> On Thu, 2015-02-19 at 17:01 +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 01:06:53PM +0000, David Vrabel wrote:
> 
> > I cannot think of a reason why this would fail for NUMA balancing on bare
> > metal. The PAGE_NONE protection clears the present bit on p[te|md]_modify
> > so the expectations are matched before or after the patch is applied. So,
> > for bare metal at least
> > 
> > Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
> > 
> > I *think* this will work ok with Xen but I cannot 100% convince myself.
> > I'm adding Wei Liu to the cc who may have a Xen PV setup handy that
> > supports NUMA and may be able to test the patch to confirm.
> > 
> I'm not Wei, but I've been able to test a kernel with David's patch in
> the following conditions:
> 

Thanks very much, it's appreciated.

>  1. as Dom0 kernel, when Xen does not have any virtual NUMA support
>  2. as DomU PV kernel, when Xen does not have any virtual NUMA support
>  3. as DomU PV kernel, when Xen _does_ _have_ virtual NUMA support
>     (i.e., Wei's code)
> 
> Cases 1. and 2. have been, I believe, tested by David already, but
> anyways... :-)
> 
> Case 3. worked well for me, as the following commands show. In fact,
> with this in guest config file:
> 
> <SNIP>
>
> And this:
> 
>     root@test-pv:~# grep numa /proc/vmstat 
>     numa_hit 65987
>     numa_miss 0
>     numa_foreign 0
>     numa_interleave 14473
>     numa_local 58642
>     numa_other 7345
>     numa_pte_updates 596
>     numa_huge_pte_updates 0
>     numa_hint_faults 479
>     numa_hint_faults_local 420
>     numa_pages_migrated 51
> 
> So, yes, I would say this wok with Xen, is that correct, Mel?
> 

Yes, these stats indicate that NUMA balancing is active. There is no
much activity but it's there.

> I'll give it a try at running more complex stuff like 'perf bench numa'
> inside the guest and see what happens...
> 

Thanks.

-- 
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
--
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/