lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Jul]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/18] Basic scheduler support for automatic NUMA balancing V5
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 12:57:19PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:

> > Right, so what Ingo did is have the scan rate depend on the convergence.
> > What exactly did you dislike about that?
> >
>
> It depended entirely on properly detecting if we are converged or not. As
> things like false share detection within THP is still not there I was
> worried that it was too easy to make the wrong decision here and keep it
> pinned at the maximum scan rate.
>
> > We could define the convergence as all the faults inside the interleave
> > mask vs the total faults, and then run at: min + (1 - c)*(max-min).
> >
>
> And when we have such things properly in place then I think we can kick
> away the current crutch.

OK, so I'll go write that patch I suppose ;-)

> > Ah, well the reasoning on that was that all this NUMA business is
> > 'expensive' so we'd better only bother with tasks that persist long
> > enough for it to pay off.
> >
>
> Which is fair enough but tasks that lasted *just* longer than the interval
> still got punished. Processes running with a slightly slower CPU gets
> hurts meaning that it would be a difficult bug report to digest.
>
> > In that regard it makes perfect sense to wait a fixed amount of runtime
> > before we start scanning.
> >
> > So it was not a pure hack to make kbuild work again.. that is did was
> > good though.
> >
>
> Maybe we should reintroduce the delay then but I really would prefer that
> it was triggered on some sort of event.

Humm:

kernel/sched/fair.c:

/* Scan @scan_size MB every @scan_period after an initial @scan_delay in ms */
unsigned int sysctl_numa_balancing_scan_delay = 1000;


kernel/sched/core.c:__sched_fork():

numa_scan_period = sysctl_numa_balancing_scan_delay


It seems its still there, no need to resuscitate.

I share your preference for a clear event, although nothing really comes
to mind. The entire multi-process space seems devoid of useful triggers.

> > On that rate-limit, this looks to be a hard-coded number unrelated to
> > the actual hardware.
>
> Guesstimate.
>
> > I think we should at the very least make it a
> > configurable number and preferably scale the number with the SLIT info.
> > Or alternatively actually measure the node to node bandwidth.
> >
>
> Ideally we should just kick it away because scan rate limiting works
> properly. Lets not make it a tunable just yet so we can avoid having to
> deprecate it later.

I'm not seeing how the rate-limit as per the convergence is going to
help here. Suppose we migrate the task to another node and its going to
stay there. Then our convergence is going down to 0 (all our memory is
remote) so we end up at the max scan rate migrating every single page
ASAP.

This would completely and utterly saturate any interconnect.

Also, in the case we don't have a fully connected system the memory
transfers will need multiple hops, which greatly complicates the entire
accounting trick :-)

I'm not particularly arguing one way or another, just saying we could
probably blow the interconnect whatever we do.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-08-01 09:21    [W:0.074 / U:0.492 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site