Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 22 Jun 2015 21:18:33 -0400 | From | Rik van Riel <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] sched:Consider imbalance_pct when comparing loads in numa_has_capacity |
| |
On 06/22/2015 12:29 PM, Srikar Dronamraju wrote: > * Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> [2015-06-16 10:39:13]: > >> On 06/16/2015 07:56 AM, Srikar Dronamraju wrote: >>> This is consistent with all other load balancing instances where we >>> absorb unfairness upto env->imbalance_pct. Absorbing unfairness upto >>> env->imbalance_pct allows to pull and retain task to their preferred >>> nodes. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> >> >> How does this work with other workloads, eg. >> single instance SPECjbb2005, or two SPECjbb2005 >> instances on a four node system? >> >> Is the load still balanced evenly between nodes >> with this patch? >> > > Yes, I have looked at mpstat logs while running SPECjbb2005 for 1JVMper > System, 2 JVMs per System and 4 JVMs per System and observed that the > load spreading was similar with and without this patch. > > Also I have visualized using htop when running 0.5X (i.e 48 threads on > 96 cpu system) cpu stress workloads to see that the spread is similar > before and after the patch. > > Please let me know if there are any better ways to observe the > spread. In a slightly loaded or less loaded system, the chance of > migrating threads to their home node by way of calling migrate_task_to > and migrate_swap might be curtailed without this patch. i.e 2 process > each having N/2 threads may converge slower without this change.
Awesome. Feel free to put my Acked-by: on this patch.
Acked-by: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
-- All rights reversed -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |