lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Jun]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 11/19] sched/numa: Restrict migrating in parallel to the same node.
    On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 03:30:20PM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
    > Since task migration under numa balancing can happen in parallel, more
    > than one task might choose to move to the same node at the same time.
    > This can cause load imbalances at the node level.
    >
    > The problem is more likely if there are more cores per node or more
    > nodes in system.
    >
    > Use a per-node variable to indicate if task migration
    > to the node under numa balance is currently active.
    > This per-node variable will not track swapping of tasks.
    >
    > Testcase Time: Min Max Avg StdDev
    > numa01.sh Real: 434.84 676.90 550.53 106.24
    > numa01.sh Sys: 125.98 217.34 179.41 30.35
    > numa01.sh User: 38318.48 53789.56 45864.17 6620.80
    > numa02.sh Real: 60.06 61.27 60.59 0.45
    > numa02.sh Sys: 14.25 17.86 16.09 1.28
    > numa02.sh User: 5190.13 5225.67 5209.24 13.19
    > numa03.sh Real: 748.21 960.25 823.15 73.51
    > numa03.sh Sys: 96.68 122.10 110.42 11.29
    > numa03.sh User: 58222.16 72595.27 63552.22 5048.87
    > numa04.sh Real: 433.08 630.55 499.30 68.15
    > numa04.sh Sys: 245.22 386.75 306.09 63.32
    > numa04.sh User: 35014.68 46151.72 38530.26 3924.65
    > numa05.sh Real: 394.77 410.07 401.41 5.99
    > numa05.sh Sys: 212.40 301.82 256.23 35.41
    > numa05.sh User: 33224.86 34201.40 33665.61 313.40
    >
    > Testcase Time: Min Max Avg StdDev %Change
    > numa01.sh Real: 674.61 997.71 785.01 115.95 -29.86%
    > numa01.sh Sys: 180.87 318.88 270.13 51.32 -33.58%
    > numa01.sh User: 54001.30 71936.50 60495.48 6237.55 -24.18%
    > numa02.sh Real: 60.62 62.30 61.46 0.62 -1.415%
    > numa02.sh Sys: 15.01 33.63 24.38 6.81 -34.00%
    > numa02.sh User: 5234.20 5325.60 5276.23 38.85 -1.269%
    > numa03.sh Real: 827.62 946.85 914.48 44.58 -9.987%
    > numa03.sh Sys: 135.55 172.40 158.46 12.75 -30.31%
    > numa03.sh User: 64839.42 73195.44 70805.96 3061.20 -10.24%
    > numa04.sh Real: 481.01 608.76 521.14 47.28 -4.190%
    > numa04.sh Sys: 329.59 373.15 353.20 14.20 -13.33%
    > numa04.sh User: 37649.09 40722.94 38806.32 1072.32 -0.711%
    > numa05.sh Real: 399.21 415.38 409.88 5.54 -2.066%
    > numa05.sh Sys: 319.46 418.57 363.31 37.62 -29.47%
    > numa05.sh User: 33727.77 34732.68 34127.41 447.11 -1.353%
    >
    > The commit does cause some performance regression but is needed from
    > a fairness/correctness perspective.
    >

    While it may cause some performance regressions, it may be due to either
    a) some workloads benefit from overloading a node if the tasks idle
    frequently or b) the regression may be due to delayed convergence. I'm
    not 100% convinced this needs to be done from a correctness point of
    view based on just this microbenchmark

    --
    Mel Gorman
    SUSE Labs

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2018-06-05 11:54    [W:4.357 / U:0.052 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site