Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH v1] sched/numa: add per-process numa_balancing
To:     Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Cc:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, 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>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
        linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
References: <20211027132633.86653-1-ligang.bdlg@bytedance.com>
 <20211028153028.GP3891@suse.de>
From:   Gang Li <ligang.bdlg@bytedance.com>
Message-ID: <b884ad7d-48d3-fcc8-d199-9e7643552a9a@bytedance.com>
Date:   Fri, 29 Oct 2021 14:12:28 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20211028153028.GP3891@suse.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 10/28/21 11:30 PM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> 
> That aside though, the configuration space could be better. It's possible
> to selectively disable NUMA balance but not selectively enable because
> prctl is disabled if global NUMA balancing is disabled. That could be
> somewhat achieved by having a default value for mm->numa_balancing based on
> whether the global numa balancing is disabled via command line or sysctl
> and enabling the static branch if prctl is used with an informational
> message. This is not the only potential solution but as it stands,
> there are odd semantic corner cases. For example, explicit enabling
> of NUMA balancing by prctl gets silently revoked if numa balancing is
> disabled via sysctl and prctl(PR_NUMA_BALANCING, PR_SET_NUMA_BALANCING,
> 1) means nothing.
>
static void task_tick_fair(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *curr, int 
queued)
{
	...
	if (static_branch_unlikely(&sched_numa_balancing))
		task_tick_numa(rq, curr);
	...
}

static void task_tick_numa(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *curr)
{
	...
	if (!READ_ONCE(curr->mm->numa_balancing))
		return;
	...
}

When global numa_balancing is disabled, mm->numa_balancing is useless. 
So I think prctl(PR_NUMA_BALANCING, PR_SET_NUMA_BALANCING,0/1) should 
return error instead of modify mm->numa_balancing.

Is it reasonable that prctl(PR_NUMA_BALANCING,PR_SET_NUMA_BALANCING,0/1)
can still change the value of mm->numa_balancing when global 
numa_balancing is disabled?