On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 11:30 PM Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> That aside though, the configuration space could be better. It's possible
> to selectively disable NUMA balance but not selectively enable because
> prctl is disabled if global NUMA balancing is disabled. That could be
> somewhat achieved by having a default value for mm->numa_balancing based on
> whether the global numa balancing is disabled via command line or sysctl
> and enabling the static branch if prctl is used with an informational
> message. This is not the only potential solution but as it stands,
> there are odd semantic corner cases. For example, explicit enabling
> of NUMA balancing by prctl gets silently revoked if numa balancing is
> disabled via sysctl and prctl(PR_NUMA_BALANCING, PR_SET_NUMA_BALANCING,
> 1) means nothing.
static void task_tick_fair(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *curr, int queued)
{
...
if (static_branch_unlikely(&sched_numa_balancing))
task_tick_numa(rq, curr);
...
}
static void task_tick_numa(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *curr)
{
...
if (!READ_ONCE(curr->mm->numa_balancing))
return;
...
}
When global numa_balancing is disabled, mm->numa_balancing is useless.
So I think
prctl(PR_NUMA_BALANCING, PR_SET_NUMA_BALANCING,0/1) should return an
error instead of modifying mm->numa_balancing.
Is it reasonable that prctl(PR_NUMA_BALANCING,PR_SET_NUMA_BALANCING,0/1)
can still change the value of mm->numa_balancing when global numa_balancing is
disabled?
