Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 11 Jul 2019 16:10:38 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     =?utf-8?B?546L6LSH?= <yun.wang@linux.alibaba.com>
Cc:     hannes@cmpxchg.org, mhocko@kernel.org, vdavydov.dev@gmail.com,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, mcgrof@kernel.org, keescook@chromium.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>, riel@surriel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] numa: introduce numa group per task group
Message-ID: <20190711141038.GE3402@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <209d247e-c1b2-3235-2722-dd7c1f896483@linux.alibaba.com>
 <60b59306-5e36-e587-9145-e90657daec41@linux.alibaba.com>
 <93cf9333-2f9a-ca1e-a4a6-54fc388d1673@linux.alibaba.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <93cf9333-2f9a-ca1e-a4a6-54fc388d1673@linux.alibaba.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 11:32:32AM +0800, 王贇 wrote:
> By tracing numa page faults, we recognize tasks sharing the same page,
> and try pack them together into a single numa group.
> 
> However when two task share lot's of cache pages while not much
> anonymous pages, since numa balancing do not tracing cache page, they
> have no chance to join into the same group.
> 
> While tracing cache page cost too much, we could use some hints from

I forgot; where again do we skip shared pages? task_numa_work() doesn't
seem to skip file vmas.

> userland and cpu cgroup could be a good one.
> 
> This patch introduced new entry 'numa_group' for cpu cgroup, by echo
> non-zero into the entry, we can now force all the tasks of this cgroup
> to join the same numa group serving for task group.
> 
> In this way tasks are more likely to settle down on the same node, to
> share closer cpu cache and gain benefit from NUMA on both file/anonymous
> pages.
> 
> Besides, when multiple cgroup enabled numa group, they will be able to
> exchange task location by utilizing numa migration, in this way they
> could achieve single node settle down without breaking load balance.

I dislike cgroup only interfaces; it there really nothing else we could
use for this?