Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 18 Feb 2020 13:50:59 +0000 | From | Mel Gorman <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] sched/numa: Replace runnable_load_avg by load_avg |
| |
On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 01:37:45PM +0100, Dietmar Eggemann wrote: > On 14/02/2020 16:27, Vincent Guittot wrote: > > [...] > > > /* > > * The load is corrected for the CPU capacity available on each node. > > * > > @@ -1788,10 +1831,10 @@ static int task_numa_migrate(struct task_struct *p) > > dist = env.dist = node_distance(env.src_nid, env.dst_nid); > > taskweight = task_weight(p, env.src_nid, dist); > > groupweight = group_weight(p, env.src_nid, dist); > > - update_numa_stats(&env.src_stats, env.src_nid); > > + update_numa_stats(&env, &env.src_stats, env.src_nid); > > This looks strange. Can you do: > > -static void update_numa_stats(struct task_numa_env *env, > +static void update_numa_stats(unsigned int imbalance_pct, > struct numa_stats *ns, int nid) > > - update_numa_stats(&env, &env.src_stats, env.src_nid); > + update_numa_stats(env.imbalance_pct, &env.src_stats, env.src_nid); >
You'd also have to pass in env->p and while it could be done, I do not think its worthwhile.
> [...] > > > +static unsigned long cpu_runnable_load(struct rq *rq) > > +{ > > + return cfs_rq_runnable_load_avg(&rq->cfs); > > +} > > + > > Why not remove cpu_runnable_load() in this patch rather moving it? > > kernel/sched/fair.c:5492:22: warning: ???cpu_runnable_load??? defined but > not used [-Wunused-function] > static unsigned long cpu_runnable_load(struct rq *rq) >
I took the liberty of addressing that when I picked up Vincent's patches for "Reconcile NUMA balancing decisions with the load balancer v3" to fix a build warning. I did not highlight it when I posted because it was such a trivial change.
-- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs
| |