lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Nov]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: numa/core regressions fixed - more testers wanted

* Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:

> * Alex Shi <lkml.alex@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Those of you who would like to test all the latest patches are
> > > welcome to pick up latest bits at tip:master:
> > >
> > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git master
> > >
> >
> > I am wondering if it is a problem, but it still exists on HEAD: c418de93e39891
> > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.mm/90131/match=compiled+with+name+pl+and+start+it+on+my
> >
> > like when just start 4 pl tasks, often 3 were running on node
> > 0, and 1 was running on node 1. The old balance will average
> > assign tasks to different node, different core.
>
> This is "normal" in the sense that the current mainline
> scheduler is (supposed to be) doing something similar: if the
> node is still within capacity, then there's no reason to move
> those threads.
>
> OTOH, I think with NUMA balancing we indeed want to spread
> them better, if those tasks do not share memory with each
> other but use their own memory. If they share memory then they
> should remain on the same node if possible.

Could you please check tip:master with -v17:

git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git master

?

It should place your workload better than v16 did.

Note, you might be able to find other combinations of tasks that
are not scheduled NUMA-perfectly yet, as task group placement is
not exhaustive yet.

You might want to check which combination looks the weirdest to
you and report it, so I can fix any remaining placement
inefficiencies in order of importance.

Thanks,

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-11-23 15:21    [W:0.138 / U:0.396 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site