lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Feb]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
SubjectRe: Re: [PATCH v3] sched/numa: add per-process numa_balancing
From
On 2022/1/12 22:43, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 06, 2021 at 10:45:28AM +0800, Gang Li wrote:
>> This patch add a new api PR_NUMA_BALANCING in prctl.
>>
>> A large number of page faults will cause performance loss when numa
>> balancing is performing. Thus those processes which care about worst-case
>> performance need numa balancing disabled. Others, on the contrary, allow a
>> temporary performance loss in exchange for higher average performance, so
>> enable numa balancing is better for them.
>>
>> Numa balancing can only be controlled globally by
>> /proc/sys/kernel/numa_balancing. Due to the above case, we want to
>> disable/enable numa_balancing per-process instead.
>>
>> Add numa_balancing under mm_struct. Then use it in task_tick_fair.
>>
>> Set per-process numa balancing:
>> prctl(PR_NUMA_BALANCING, PR_SET_NUMAB_DISABLE); //disable
>> prctl(PR_NUMA_BALANCING, PR_SET_NUMAB_ENABLE); //enable
>> prctl(PR_NUMA_BALANCING, PR_SET_NUMAB_DEFAULT); //follow global
>
> This seems to imply you can prctl(ENABLE) even if the global is
> disabled, IOW sched_numa_balancing is off.
>

Of course, this semantic has been discussed here FYI.
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20211118085819.GD3301@suse.de/

On 11/18/21 4:58 PM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 11:26:30AM +0800, Gang Li wrote:
>> 3. prctl(PR_NUMA_BALANCING, PR_SET_NUMAB_ENABLE); //enable
>
> If PR_SET_NUMAB_ENABLE enables numa balancing for a task when
> kernel.numa_balancing == 0 instead of returning an error then sure.


>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> index 884f29d07963..2980f33ac61f 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> @@ -11169,8 +11169,12 @@ static void task_tick_fair(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *curr, int queued)
>> entity_tick(cfs_rq, se, queued);
>> }
>>
>> - if (static_branch_unlikely(&sched_numa_balancing))
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_NUMA_BALANCING
>> + if (curr->mm && (curr->mm->numab_enabled == NUMAB_ENABLED
>> + || (static_branch_unlikely(&sched_numa_balancing)
>> + && curr->mm->numab_enabled == NUMAB_DEFAULT)))
>> task_tick_numa(rq, curr);
>> +#endif
>>
>> update_misfit_status(curr, rq);
>> update_overutilized_status(task_rq(curr));
>
> There's just about everything wrong there... not least of all the
> horrific coding style.

horrible code, yes.
I'll do some code clean.
--
Thanks
Gang Li

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-02-08 04:48    [W:0.062 / U:2.648 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site