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:   Fri, 3 Jan 2020 16:14:49 +0100
From:   Michal =?iso-8859-1?Q?Koutn=FD?= <mkoutny@suse.com>
To:     =?utf-8?B?546L6LSH?= <yun.wang@linux.alibaba.com>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
        Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Iurii Zaikin <yzaikin@google.com>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.ibm.com>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] sched/numa: introduce per-cgroup NUMA locality
 info
Message-ID: <20200103151449.GA25747@blackbody.suse.cz>
References: <743eecad-9556-a241-546b-c8a66339840e@linux.alibaba.com>
 <207ef46c-672c-27c8-2012-735bd692a6de@linux.alibaba.com>
 <040def80-9c38-4bcc-e4a8-8a0d10f131ed@linux.alibaba.com>
 <25cf7ef5-e37e-7578-eea7-29ad0b76c4ea@linux.alibaba.com>
 <443641e7-f968-0954-5ff6-3b7e7fed0e83@linux.alibaba.com>
 <d2c4cace-623a-9317-c957-807e3875aa4a@linux.alibaba.com>
 <275a98ed-35b8-b65f-3600-64ab722dd836@linux.alibaba.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <275a98ed-35b8-b65f-3600-64ab722dd836@linux.alibaba.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi.

On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 09:47:36AM +0800, 王贇 <yun.wang@linux.alibaba.com> wrote:
> By monitoring the increments, we will be able to locate the per-cgroup
> workload which NUMA Balancing can't helpwith (usually caused by wrong
> CPU and memory node bindings), then we got chance to fix that in time.
I just wonder do the data based on increments match with those you
obtained previously?

> +static inline void
> +update_task_locality(struct task_struct *p, int pnid, int cnid, int pages)
> +{
> +	if (!static_branch_unlikely(&sched_numa_locality))
> +		return;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * pnid != cnid --> remote idx 0
> +	 * pnid == cnid --> local idx 1
> +	 */
> +	p->numa_page_access[!!(pnid == cnid)] += pages;
If the per-task information isn't used anywhere, why not accumulate
directly into task's cfs_rq->{local,remote}_page_access?

> @@ -4298,6 +4359,7 @@ entity_tick(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *curr, int queued)
>  	 */
>  	update_load_avg(cfs_rq, curr, UPDATE_TG);
>  	update_cfs_group(curr);
> +	update_group_locality(cfs_rq);
With the per-NUMA node time tracked separately, isn't it unnecessary
doing group updates inside entity_tick? 


Regards,
Michal