* Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On 10/10/2023 2:01 PM, Mel Gorman wrote: > > NUMA Balancing currently uses PID fault activity within a VMA to > > determine if it is worth updating PTEs to trap NUMA hinting faults. > > While this is reduces overhead, it misses two important corner case. > > The first is that if Task A partially scans a VMA that is active and > > Task B resumes the scan but is inactive, then the remainder of the VMA > > may be missed. Similarly, if a VMA is inactive for a period of time then > > it may never be scanned again. > > > > Patches 1-3 improve the documentation of the current per-VMA tracking > > and adds a trace point for scan activity. Patch 4 addresses a corner > > case where the PID activity information may not be reset after the > > expected timeout. Patches 5-6 complete the scanning of partial and > > inactive VMAs within the scan sequence. > > > > This could be improved further but it would deserve a separate series on > > top with supporting data justifying the change. Otherwise and gain/loss > > due to the additional changes could be masked by this series on its own. > > > > Thank you Mel for the patches. I see Ingo already took to sched/core. > Here is my testing detail FWIW. Thank you for testing the series, I've added your Tested-by to the final two patches that change behavior materially: Tested-by: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@xxxxxxx> Thanks, Ingo
