lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Sep]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 4/4] sched/numa: Do not move imbalanced load purely on the basis of an idle CPU
On Fri, Sep 07, 2018 at 11:11:39AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> Commit 305c1fac3225 ("sched/numa: Evaluate move once per node")
> restructured how task_numa_compare evaluates load but there is an anomaly.
> task_numa_find_cpu() checks if the load balance between too nodes is too
> imbalanced with the intent of only swapping tasks if it would improve
> the balance overall. However, if an idle CPU is encountered, the task is
> still moved if it's the best improvement but an idle cpu is always going
> to appear to be the best improvement.
>
> If a machine is lightly loaded such that all tasks can fit on one node then
> the idle CPUs are found and the tasks migrate to one socket. From a NUMA
> perspective, this seems intuitively great because memory accesses are all
> local but there are two counter-intuitive effects.
>
> First, the load balancer may move tasks so the machine is more evenly
> utilised and conflict with automatic NUMA balancing which may respond by
> scanning more frequently and increasing overhead. Second, sockets usually
> have their own memory channels so using one socket means that fewer
> channels are available yielding less memory bandwidth overall. For
> memory-bound tasks, it can be beneficial to migrate to another socket and
> migrate the data to increase bandwidth even though the accesses are remote
> in the short term.

> ---
> kernel/sched/fair.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index d59d3e00a480..d4c289c11012 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -1560,7 +1560,7 @@ static bool task_numa_compare(struct task_numa_env *env,
> goto unlock;
>
> if (!cur) {
> - if (maymove || imp > env->best_imp)
> + if (maymove)
> goto assign;
> else
> goto unlock;

Srikar's patch here:

http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1533276841-16341-4-git-send-email-srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com

Also frobs this condition, but in a less radical way. Does that yield
similar results?

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-09-07 13:34    [W:0.483 / U:0.292 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site