* Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > * Alex Shi <lkml.alex@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > Those of you who would like to test all the latest patches are > > > welcome to pick up latest bits at tip:master: > > > > > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git master > > > > > > > I am wondering if it is a problem, but it still exists on HEAD: c418de93e39891 > > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.mm/90131/match=compiled+with+name+pl+and+start+it+on+my > > > > like when just start 4 pl tasks, often 3 were running on node > > 0, and 1 was running on node 1. The old balance will average > > assign tasks to different node, different core. > > This is "normal" in the sense that the current mainline > scheduler is (supposed to be) doing something similar: if the > node is still within capacity, then there's no reason to move > those threads. > > OTOH, I think with NUMA balancing we indeed want to spread > them better, if those tasks do not share memory with each > other but use their own memory. If they share memory then they > should remain on the same node if possible. Could you please check tip:master with -v17: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git master ? It should place your workload better than v16 did. Note, you might be able to find other combinations of tasks that are not scheduled NUMA-perfectly yet, as task group placement is not exhaustive yet. You might want to check which combination looks the weirdest to you and report it, so I can fix any remaining placement inefficiencies in order of importance. Thanks, Ingo -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>