On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 02:33:45PM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote: > * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2013-07-30 10:20:01]: > > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 10:17:55AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 01:18:15PM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote: > > > > Here is an approach that looks to consolidate workloads across nodes. > > > > This results in much improved performance. Again I would assume this work > > > > is complementary to Mel's work with numa faulting. > > > > > > I highly dislike the use of task weights here. It seems completely > > > unrelated to the problem at hand. > > > > I also don't particularly like the fact that it's purely process based. > > The faults information we have gives much richer task relations. > > > > With just pure fault information based approach, I am not seeing any > major improvement in tasks/memory consolidation. I still see memory > spread across different nodes and tasks getting ping-ponged to different > nodes. And if there are multiple unrelated processes, then we see a mix > of tasks of different processes in each of the node. The fault thing isn't finished. Mel explicitly said it doesn't yet have inter-task relations. And you run everything in a VM which is like a big nasty mangler for anything sane. -- 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>