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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200214152729.6059-1-vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
 <20200214152729.6059-3-vincent.guittot@linaro.org> <ecbf5317-e6cf-fc20-9871-4ea06a987952@arm.com>
 <20200218135059.GE3420@suse.de>
In-Reply-To: <20200218135059.GE3420@suse.de>
From:   Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Date:   Tue, 18 Feb 2020 15:17:08 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKfTPtA9yOoPRMYgE1V22FJMpo+jr=VS1kQHqYrArG-GXMN18g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] sched/numa: Replace runnable_load_avg by load_avg
To:     Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Cc:     Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.com>, Parth Shah <parth@linux.ibm.com>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
        Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 at 14:51, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 01:37:45PM +0100, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> > On 14/02/2020 16:27, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > >     /*
> > >      * The load is corrected for the CPU capacity available on each node.
> > >      *
> > > @@ -1788,10 +1831,10 @@ static int task_numa_migrate(struct task_struct *p)
> > >     dist = env.dist = node_distance(env.src_nid, env.dst_nid);
> > >     taskweight = task_weight(p, env.src_nid, dist);
> > >     groupweight = group_weight(p, env.src_nid, dist);
> > > -   update_numa_stats(&env.src_stats, env.src_nid);
> > > +   update_numa_stats(&env, &env.src_stats, env.src_nid);
> >
> > This looks strange. Can you do:
> >
> > -static void update_numa_stats(struct task_numa_env *env,
> > +static void update_numa_stats(unsigned int imbalance_pct,
> >                               struct numa_stats *ns, int nid)
> >
> > -    update_numa_stats(&env, &env.src_stats, env.src_nid);
> > +    update_numa_stats(env.imbalance_pct, &env.src_stats, env.src_nid);
> >
>
> You'd also have to pass in env->p and while it could be done, I do not
> think its worthwhile.

I agree

>
> > [...]
> >
> > > +static unsigned long cpu_runnable_load(struct rq *rq)
> > > +{
> > > +   return cfs_rq_runnable_load_avg(&rq->cfs);
> > > +}
> > > +
> >
> > Why not remove cpu_runnable_load() in this patch rather moving it?
> >
> > kernel/sched/fair.c:5492:22: warning: ???cpu_runnable_load??? defined but
> > not used [-Wunused-function]
> >  static unsigned long cpu_runnable_load(struct rq *rq)
> >
>
> I took the liberty of addressing that when I picked up Vincent's patches
> for "Reconcile NUMA balancing decisions with the load balancer v3" to fix
> a build warning. I did not highlight it when I posted because it was such
> a trivial change.

yes I have noticed that.
Thanks

>
> --
> Mel Gorman
> SUSE Labs