Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> * Huang, Ying <ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx> [2019-07-26 15:45:39]:
>
>> Hi, Srikar,
>>
>> >
>> > More Remote + Private page Accesses:
>> > Most likely the Private accesses are going to be local accesses.
>> >
>> > In the unlikely event of the private accesses not being local, we should
>> > scan faster so that the memory and task consolidates.
>> >
>> > More Remote + Shared page Accesses: This means the workload has not
>> > consolidated and needs to scan faster. So we need to scan faster.
>>
>> This sounds reasonable. But
>>
>> lr_ratio < NUMA_PERIOD_THRESHOLD
>>
>> doesn't indicate More Remote. If Local = Remote, it is also true. If
>
> less lr_ratio means more remote.
>
>> there are also more Shared, we should slow down the scanning. So, the
>
> Why should we slowing down if there are more remote shared accesses?
>
>> logic could be
>>
>> if (lr_ratio >= NUMA_PERIOD_THRESHOLD)
>> slow down scanning
>> else if (sp_ratio >= NUMA_PERIOD_THRESHOLD) {
>> if (NUMA_PERIOD_SLOTS - lr_ratio >= NUMA_PERIOD_THRESHOLD)
>> speed up scanning
Thought about this again. For example, a multi-threads workload runs on
a 4-sockets machine, and most memory accesses are shared. The optimal
situation will be pseudo-interleaving, that is, spreading memory
accesses evenly among 4 NUMA nodes. Where "share" >> "private", and
"remote" > "local". And we should slow down scanning to reduce the
overhead.
What do you think about this?
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
>> else
>> slow down scanning
>> } else
>> speed up scanning
>>
>> This follows your idea better?
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Huang, Ying
