lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Mar]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH -V3 2/2 UPDATE] NUMA balancing: avoid to migrate task to CPU-less node
Date
Hi, Peter,

"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com> writes:

> In a typical memory tiering system, there's no CPU in slow (PMEM) NUMA
> nodes. But if the number of the hint page faults on a PMEM node is
> the max for a task, The current NUMA balancing policy may try to place
> the task on the PMEM node instead of DRAM node. This is unreasonable,
> because there's no CPU in PMEM NUMA nodes. To fix this, CPU-less
> nodes are ignored when searching the migration target node for a task
> in this patch.
>
> To test the patch, we run a workload that accesses more memory in PMEM
> node than memory in DRAM node. Without the patch, the PMEM node will
> be chosen as preferred node in task_numa_placement(). While the DRAM
> node will be chosen instead with the patch.
>
> Known issue: I don't have systems to test complex NUMA topology type,
> for example, NUMA_BACKPLANE or NUMA_GLUELESS_MESH.
>
> v3:
>
> - Fix a boot crash for some uncovered marginal condition. Thanks Qian
> Cai for reporting and testing the bug!
>
> - Fix several missing places to use CPU-less nodes as migrating
> target.
>
> Signed-off-by: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>
> Reported-and-tested-by: Qian Cai <quic_qiancai@quicinc.com> # boot crash
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> Cc: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
> Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
> Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>
> Cc: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

Can you update the patch to fix the bug? Or you prefer the incremental
patch?

Best Regards,
Huang, Ying

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-03-08 03:11    [W:0.103 / U:0.340 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site