lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jul]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH RESEND] autonuma: Fix scan period updating
Date
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:

> * Huang, Ying <ying.huang@intel.com> [2019-07-26 15:45:39]:
>
>> Hi, Srikar,
>>
>> >
>> > More Remote + Private page Accesses:
>> > Most likely the Private accesses are going to be local accesses.
>> >
>> > In the unlikely event of the private accesses not being local, we should
>> > scan faster so that the memory and task consolidates.
>> >
>> > More Remote + Shared page Accesses: This means the workload has not
>> > consolidated and needs to scan faster. So we need to scan faster.
>>
>> This sounds reasonable. But
>>
>> lr_ratio < NUMA_PERIOD_THRESHOLD
>>
>> doesn't indicate More Remote. If Local = Remote, it is also true. If
>
> less lr_ratio means more remote.
>
>> there are also more Shared, we should slow down the scanning. So, the
>
> Why should we slowing down if there are more remote shared accesses?
>
>> logic could be
>>
>> if (lr_ratio >= NUMA_PERIOD_THRESHOLD)
>> slow down scanning
>> else if (sp_ratio >= NUMA_PERIOD_THRESHOLD) {
>> if (NUMA_PERIOD_SLOTS - lr_ratio >= NUMA_PERIOD_THRESHOLD)
>> speed up scanning

Thought about this again. For example, a multi-threads workload runs on
a 4-sockets machine, and most memory accesses are shared. The optimal
situation will be pseudo-interleaving, that is, spreading memory
accesses evenly among 4 NUMA nodes. Where "share" >> "private", and
"remote" > "local". And we should slow down scanning to reduce the
overhead.

What do you think about this?

Best Regards,
Huang, Ying

>> else
>> slow down scanning
>> } else
>> speed up scanning
>>
>> This follows your idea better?
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Huang, Ying

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-07-29 05:06    [W:0.050 / U:1.260 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site