lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Jul]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] sched, numa: Use {cpu, pid} to create task groups for shared faults
On 07/31/2013 11:07 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> New version that includes a final put for the numa_group struct and a
> few other modifications.
>
> The new task_numa_free() completely blows though, far too expensive.
> Good ideas needed.
>
> ---
> Subject: sched, numa: Use {cpu, pid} to create task groups for shared faults
> From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> Date: Tue Jul 30 10:40:20 CEST 2013
>
> A very simple/straight forward shared fault task grouping
> implementation.
>
> Concerns are that grouping on a single shared fault might be too
> aggressive -- this only works because Mel is excluding DSOs for faults,
> otherwise we'd have the world in a single group.
>
> Future work could explore more complex means of picking groups. We
> could for example track one group for the entire scan (using something
> like PDM) and join it at the end of the scan if we deem it shared a
> sufficient amount of memory.
>
> Another avenue to explore is that to do with tasks where private faults
> are predominant. Should we exclude them from the group or treat them as
> secondary, creating a graded group that tries hardest to collate shared
> tasks but also tries to move private tasks near when possible.
>
> Also, the grouping information is completely unused, its up to future
> patches to do this.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> ---
> include/linux/sched.h | 4 +
> kernel/sched/core.c | 4 +
> kernel/sched/fair.c | 177 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> kernel/sched/sched.h | 5 -
> 4 files changed, 176 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

> +
> +static void task_numa_free(struct task_struct *p)
> +{
> + kfree(p->numa_faults);
> + if (p->numa_group) {
> + struct numa_group *grp = p->numa_group;

See below.

> + int i;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < 2*nr_node_ids; i++)
> + atomic_long_sub(p->numa_faults[i], &grp->faults[i]);
> +
> + spin_lock(&p->numa_lock);
> + spin_lock(&group->lock);
> + list_del(&p->numa_entry);
> + spin_unlock(&group->lock);
> + rcu_assign_pointer(p->numa_group, NULL);
> + put_numa_group(grp);

So is the local variable group or grp here? Got to be one or the
other to compile...

Don

> + }
> +}
> +
> /*
> * Got a PROT_NONE fault for a page on @node.
> */



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-07-31 18:01    [W:0.120 / U:1.624 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site