lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Feb]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] sched/numa: Delay retrying placement for automatic NUMA balance after wake_affine
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 05:11:31PM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:
> +static void
> +update_wa_numa_placement(struct task_struct *p, int prev_cpu, int target)
> +{
> + unsigned long interval;
> +
> + if (!static_branch_likely(&sched_numa_balancing))
> + return;
> +
> + /* If balancing has no preference then accept the target */
> + if (p->numa_preferred_nid == -1)
> + return;
> +
> + /* If the wakeup is not affecting locality then accept the target */
> + if (cpus_share_cache(prev_cpu, target))
> + return;

Both the above comments speak of 'accepting' the target, but its a void
function, there's nothing they can do about it. It cannot not accept the
placement.

> +
> + /*
> + * Temporarily prevent NUMA balancing trying to place waker/wakee after
> + * wakee has been moved by wake_affine. This will potentially allow
> + * related tasks to converge and update their data placement. The
> + * 4 * numa_scan_period is to allow the two-pass filter to migrate
> + * hot data to the wakers node.
> + */
> + interval = max(sysctl_numa_balancing_scan_delay,
> + p->numa_scan_period << 2);
> + p->numa_migrate_retry = jiffies + msecs_to_jiffies(interval);
> +
> + interval = max(sysctl_numa_balancing_scan_delay,
> + current->numa_scan_period << 2);
> + current->numa_migrate_retry = jiffies + msecs_to_jiffies(interval);
> +}

Otherwise that makes sense.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-02-12 18:39    [W:0.081 / U:1.104 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site