Subject: sched, numa: Improve scanner
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue Jul 23 17:02:38 CEST 2013
With a trace_printk("working\n"); right after the cmpxchg in
task_numa_work() we can see that of a 4 thread process, its always the
same task winning the race and doing the protection change.
This is a problem since the task doing the protection change has a
penalty for taking faults -- it is busy when marking the PTEs. If its
always the same task the ->numa_faults[] get severely skewed.
Avoid this by delaying the task doing the protection change such that
it is unlikely to win the privilege again.
Before:
root@interlagos:~# grep "thread 0/.*working" /debug/tracing/trace | tail -15
thread 0/0-3232 [022] .... 212.787402: task_numa_work: working
thread 0/0-3232 [022] .... 212.888473: task_numa_work: working
thread 0/0-3232 [022] .... 212.989538: task_numa_work: working
thread 0/0-3232 [022] .... 213.090602: task_numa_work: working
thread 0/0-3232 [022] .... 213.191667: task_numa_work: working
thread 0/0-3232 [022] .... 213.292734: task_numa_work: working
thread 0/0-3232 [022] .... 213.393804: task_numa_work: working
thread 0/0-3232 [022] .... 213.494869: task_numa_work: working
thread 0/0-3232 [022] .... 213.596937: task_numa_work: working
thread 0/0-3232 [022] .... 213.699000: task_numa_work: working
thread 0/0-3232 [022] .... 213.801067: task_numa_work: working
thread 0/0-3232 [022] .... 213.903155: task_numa_work: working
thread 0/0-3232 [022] .... 214.005201: task_numa_work: working
thread 0/0-3232 [022] .... 214.107266: task_numa_work: working
thread 0/0-3232 [022] .... 214.209342: task_numa_work: working
After:
root@interlagos:~# grep "thread 0/.*working" /debug/tracing/trace | tail -15
thread 0/0-3253 [005] .... 136.865051: task_numa_work: working
thread 0/2-3255 [026] .... 136.965134: task_numa_work: working
thread 0/3-3256 [024] .... 137.065217: task_numa_work: working
thread 0/3-3256 [024] .... 137.165302: task_numa_work: working
thread 0/3-3256 [024] .... 137.265382: task_numa_work: working
thread 0/0-3253 [004] .... 137.366465: task_numa_work: working
thread 0/2-3255 [026] .... 137.466549: task_numa_work: working
thread 0/0-3253 [004] .... 137.566629: task_numa_work: working
thread 0/0-3253 [004] .... 137.666711: task_numa_work: working
thread 0/1-3254 [028] .... 137.766799: task_numa_work: working
thread 0/0-3253 [004] .... 137.866876: task_numa_work: working
thread 0/2-3255 [026] .... 137.966960: task_numa_work: working
thread 0/1-3254 [028] .... 138.067041: task_numa_work: working
thread 0/2-3255 [026] .... 138.167123: task_numa_work: working
thread 0/3-3256 [024] .... 138.267207: task_numa_work: working
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
kernel/sched/fair.c | 8 +++++++-
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -1316,6 +1316,12 @@ void task_numa_work(struct callback_head
return;
/*
+ * Delay this task enough that another task of this mm will likely win
+ * the next time around.
+ */
+ p->node_stamp += 2 * TICK_NSEC;
+
+ /*
* Do not set pte_numa if the current running node is rate-limited.
* This loses statistics on the fault but if we are unwilling to
* migrate to this node, it is less likely we can do useful work
@@ -1405,7 +1411,7 @@ void task_tick_numa(struct rq *rq, struc
if (now - curr->node_stamp > period) {
if (!curr->node_stamp)
curr->numa_scan_period = task_scan_min(curr);
- curr->node_stamp = now;
+ curr->node_stamp += period;
if (!time_before(jiffies, curr->mm->numa_next_scan)) {
init_task_work(work, task_numa_work); /* TODO: move this into sched_fork() */
--
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>