lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Feb]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] sched/fair: Consider SD_NUMA when selecting the most idle group to schedule on
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 02:04:45PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 11:35:48AM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > However, if we have numa balancing enabled, that will counteract
> > > the normal spreading across nodes, so in that regard it makes sense, but
> > > the above code is not conditional on numa balancing.
> > >
> >
> > It's not conditional on NUMA balancing because one case where it mattered
> > was a fork-intensive workload driven by shell scripts. In that case, the
> > workload benefits from preferring a local node without any involvement from
> > NUMA balancing. I could make it conditional on it but it's not strictly
> > related to automatic NUMA balancing, it's about being less eager about
> > starting new children on remote nodes.
>
> Yeah, I suppose. And you're right, there's no real winning this. It's
> all tea-leaves and entrails.
>

That is my new favourite description of this portion of the scheduler :D

> In any case, I think I prefer the kill sync early variant and you were
> going to ammend some comments. Can you respin and resend all these
> patches (can do in a single series)?

No problem. I had it prepared already and am just waiting for one result
before I push send.

Thanks.

--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-02-13 14:30    [W:0.078 / U:2.228 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site