lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Sep]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 4/4] sched/numa: Do not move imbalanced load purely on the basis of an idle CPU

* Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> * Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net> [2018-09-10 10:41:47]:
>
> > On Fri, Sep 07, 2018 at 01:37:39PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > > Srikar's patch here:
> > > >
> > > > http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1533276841-16341-4-git-send-email-srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com
> > > >
> > > > Also frobs this condition, but in a less radical way. Does that yield
> > > > similar results?
> > >
> > > I can check. I do wonder of course if the less radical approach just means
> > > that automatic NUMA balancing and the load balancer simply disagree about
> > > placement at a different time. It'll take a few days to have an answer as
> > > the battery of workloads to check this take ages.
> > >
> >
> > Tests completed over the weekend and I've found that the performance of
> > both patches are very similar for two machines (both 2 socket) running a
> > variety of workloads. Hence, I'm not worried about which patch gets picked
> > up. However, I would prefer my own on the grounds that the additional
> > complexity does not appear to get us anything. Of course, that changes if
> > Srikar's tests on his larger ppc64 machines show the more complex approach
> > is justified.
> >
>
> Running SPECJbb2005. Higher bops are better.
>
> Kernel A = 4.18+ 13 sched patches part of v4.19-rc1.
> Kernel B = Kernel A + 6 patches (http://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1533276841-16341-1-git-send-email-srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com)
> Kernel C = Kernel B - (Avoid task migration for small numa improvement) i.e
> http://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1533276841-16341-4-git-send-email-srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com
> + 2 patches from Mel
> (Do not move imbalanced load purely)
> http://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20180907101139.20760-5-mgorman@techsingularity.net
> (Stop comparing tasks for NUMA placement)
> http://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20180907101139.20760-4-mgorman@techsingularity.net

We absolutely need the 'best' pre-regression baseline kernel measurements as well - was it
vanilla v4.17?

Thanks,

Ingo

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-09-12 11:58    [W:0.085 / U:0.732 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site