On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 02:12:28PM +0800, Gang Li wrote:
> On 10/28/21 11:30 PM, Mel Gorman 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.
I'm aware that this is the behaviour of the patch as-is.
> So I
> think prctl(PR_NUMA_BALANCING, PR_SET_NUMA_BALANCING,0/1) should return
> error instead of modify 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?
>
My point is that as it stands,
prctl(PR_NUMA_BALANCING,PR_SET_NUMA_BALANCING,1) either does nothing or
fails. If per-process numa balancing is to be introduced, it should have
meaning with the global tuning affecting default behaviour and the prctl
affecting specific behaviour.
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
