lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Jan]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/9] numa,sched: track from which nodes NUMA faults are triggered
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 05:20:05PM -0500, riel@redhat.com wrote:
> From: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
>
> Track which nodes NUMA faults are triggered from, in other words
> the CPUs on which the NUMA faults happened. This uses a similar
> mechanism to what is used to track the memory involved in numa faults.
>
> The next patches use this to build up a bitmap of which nodes a
> workload is actively running on.
>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
> Cc: Chegu Vinod <chegu_vinod@hp.com>
> Signed-off-by: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
> ---
> include/linux/sched.h | 10 ++++++++--
> kernel/sched/fair.c | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> 2 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
> index b8f8476..d14d9fe 100644
> --- a/include/linux/sched.h
> +++ b/include/linux/sched.h
> @@ -1492,6 +1492,14 @@ struct task_struct {
> unsigned long *numa_faults_buffer_memory;
>
> /*
> + * 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_cpu;
> + unsigned long *numa_faults_buffer_cpu;
> +

/*
* Track the nodes the process was running on when a NUMA hinting fault
* was incurred ......
*/

?

Otherwise the comment is very similar to numa_faults_memory. I'm not
that bothered because the name is descriptive enough.


> + /*
> * numa_faults_locality tracks if faults recorded during the last
> * scan window were remote/local. The task scan period is adapted
> * based on the locality of the faults with different weights
> @@ -1594,8 +1602,6 @@ extern void task_numa_fault(int last_node, int node, int pages, int flags);
> extern pid_t task_numa_group_id(struct task_struct *p);
> extern void set_numabalancing_state(bool enabled);
> extern void task_numa_free(struct task_struct *p);
> -
> -extern unsigned int sysctl_numa_balancing_migrate_deferred;
> #else
> static inline void task_numa_fault(int last_node, int node, int pages,
> int flags)

Should this hunk move to patch 1?

Whether you make the changes or not

Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>

In my last review I complained about magic numbers but I see a later
patch has a subject that at least implies it deals with the numbers.

--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-01-24 17:41    [W:0.215 / U:1.116 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site