Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
Date:   Wed, 18 May 2022 15:59:34 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
        Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@linux.intel.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] sched/numa: Apply imbalance limitations consistently
Message-ID: <YoT7xtVc0f3DVCKL@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20220511143038.4620-1-mgorman@techsingularity.net>
 <20220511143038.4620-4-mgorman@techsingularity.net>
 <20220518093156.GD10117@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20220518104652.GO3441@techsingularity.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220518104652.GO3441@techsingularity.net>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 11:46:52AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:

> > (Although I do wonder about that 25% figure in the comment; that doesn't
> > seem to relate to any actual code anymore)
> > 
> 
> You're right, by the end of the series it's completely inaccurate and
> currently it's not accurate if there are multiple LLCs per node. I
> adjusted the wording to "Allow a NUMA imbalance if busy CPUs is less
> than the maximum threshold. Above this threshold, individual tasks may
> be contending for both memory bandwidth and any shared HT resources."
> 

Looks good. Meanwhile I saw a 0-day complaint that this regresses
something something unixbench by a bit. Do we care enough? I suppose
this is one of those trade-off patches again, win some, loose some.