lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Jan]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/6] numa,sched: track from which nodes NUMA faults are triggered
On 01/21/2014 07:21 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 02:21:03PM -0500, riel@redhat.com wrote:

>> +++ b/include/linux/sched.h
>> @@ -1492,6 +1492,14 @@ struct task_struct {
>> unsigned long *numa_faults_buffer;
>>
>> /*
>> + * Track the nodes where faults are incurred. This is not very
>> + * interesting on a per-task basis, but it help with smarter
>> + * numa memory placement for groups of processes.
>> + */
>> + unsigned long *numa_faults_from;
>> + unsigned long *numa_faults_from_buffer;
>> +
>
> As an aside I wonder if we can derive any useful metric from this

It may provide for a better way to tune the numa scan interval
than the current code, since the "local vs remote" ratio is not
going to provide us much useful info when dealing with a workload
that is spread across multiple numa nodes.

>> grp->total_faults = p->total_numa_faults;
>> @@ -1526,7 +1536,7 @@ static void task_numa_group(struct task_struct *p, int cpupid, int flags,
>>
>> double_lock(&my_grp->lock, &grp->lock);
>>
>> - for (i = 0; i < 2*nr_node_ids; i++) {
>> + for (i = 0; i < 4*nr_node_ids; i++) {
>> my_grp->faults[i] -= p->numa_faults[i];
>> grp->faults[i] += p->numa_faults[i];
>> }
>
> The same obscure trick is used throughout and I'm not sure how
> maintainable that will be. Would it be better to be explicit about this?

I have made a cleanup patch for this, using the defines you
suggested.

>> @@ -1634,6 +1649,7 @@ void task_numa_fault(int last_cpupid, int node, int pages, int flags)
>> p->numa_pages_migrated += pages;
>>
>> p->numa_faults_buffer[task_faults_idx(node, priv)] += pages;
>> + p->numa_faults_from_buffer[task_faults_idx(this_node, priv)] += pages;
>> p->numa_faults_locality[!!(flags & TNF_FAULT_LOCAL)] += pages;
>
> this_node and node is similarly ambiguous in terms of name. Rename of
> data_node and cpu_node would have been clearer.

I added a patch in the next version of the series.

Don't want to make the series too large, though :)

--
All rights reversed


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-01-22 01:01    [W:0.067 / U:2.256 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site