lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Aug]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH,RFC] numa,sched: use group fault statistics in numa placement
On 08/01/2013 06:37 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 01, 2013 at 02:23:19AM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
>> Subject: [PATCH,RFC] numa,sched: use group fault statistics in numa placement
>>
>> Here is a quick strawman on how the group fault stuff could be used
>> to help pick the best node for a task. This is likely to be quite
>> suboptimal and in need of tweaking. My main goal is to get this to
>> Peter & Mel before it's breakfast time on their side of the Atlantic...
>>
>> This goes on top of "sched, numa: Use {cpu, pid} to create task groups for shared faults"
>>
>> Enjoy :)
>>
>> + /*
>> + * Should we stay on our own, or move in with the group?
>> + * The absolute count of faults may not be useful, but comparing
>> + * the fraction of accesses in each top node may give us a hint
>> + * where to start looking for a migration target.
>> + *
>> + * max_group_faults max_faults
>> + * ------------------ > ------------
>> + * total_group_faults total_faults
>> + */
>> + if (max_group_nid >= 0 && max_group_nid != max_nid) {
>> + if (max_group_faults * total_faults >
>> + max_faults * total_group_faults)
>> + max_nid = max_group_nid;
>> + }
>
> This makes sense.. another part of the problem, which you might already
> have spotted is selecting a task to swap with.
>
> If you only look at per task faults its often impossible to find a
> suitable swap task because moving you to a more suitable node would
> degrade the other task -- below a patch you've already seen but I
> haven't yet posted because I'm not at all sure its something 'sane' :-)

I did not realize you had not posted that patch yet, and was
actually building on top of it :)

I suspect that comparing both per-task and per-group fault weights
in task_numa_compare should make your code do the right thing in
task_numa_migrate.

I suspect there will be enough randomness in accesses that they
will never be exactly the same, so we might not need an explicit
tie breaker.

However, if numa_migrate_preferred fails, we may want to try
migrating to any node that has a better score than the current
one. After all, if we have a group of tasks that would fit in
2 NUMA nodes, we don't want half of the tasks to not migrate
at all because the top node is full. We want them to move to
the #2 node at some point.

--
All rights reversed


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-08-01 18:41    [W:0.053 / U:0.456 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site