Message-ID: <1340995905.28750.113.camel@twins>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/40] autonuma: CPU follow memory algorithm
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: dlaor@redhat.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Hillf Danton <dhillf@gmail.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, Dan Smith <danms@us.ibm.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
        Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>,
        Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com>,
        Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>,
        Bharata B Rao <bharata.rao@gmail.com>,
        Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@hp.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>, Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com>,
        Mauricio Faria de Oliveira <mauricfo@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
        Don Morris <don.morris@hp.com>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 20:51:45 +0200
In-Reply-To: <4FEDF81C.1010401@redhat.com>
References: <1340888180-15355-1-git-send-email-aarcange@redhat.com>
	  <1340888180-15355-14-git-send-email-aarcange@redhat.com>
	  <1340895238.28750.49.camel@twins>
	  <CAJd=RBA+FPgB9iq07YG0Pd=tN65SGK1ifmj98tomBDbYeKOE-Q@mail.gmail.com>
	  <20120629125517.GD32637@gmail.com> <4FEDDD0C.60609@redhat.com>
	 <1340995260.28750.103.camel@twins> <4FEDF81C.1010401@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 819
Lines: 19

On Fri, 2012-06-29 at 14:46 -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > I've also stated several times that forceful migration in the context of
> > numa balancing must go.
> 
> I am not convinced about this part either way.
> 
> I do not see how a migration numa thread (which could potentially
> use idle cpu time) will be any worse than migrate on fault, which
> will always take away time from the userspace process. 

Any NUMA stuff is long term, it really shouldn't matter on the timescale
of a few jiffies.

NUMA placement should also not over-ride fairness, esp. not by default.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/