Re: Re: [PATCH v3] sched/numa: add per-process numa_balancing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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@xxxxxxx/

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




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [NTFS 3]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [NTFS 3]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]

  Powered by Linux