From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Avoiding marking PTEs pte_numa because a particular NUMA node is migrate rate limited sees like a bad idea. Even if this node can't migrate anymore other nodes might and we want up-to-date information to do balance decisions. We already rate limit the actual migrations, this should leave enough bandwidth to allow the non-migrating scanning. I think its important we keep up-to-date information if we're going to do placement based on it. Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxx> --- kernel/sched/fair.c | 8 -------- 1 file changed, 8 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c index 8b9ff79..39be6af 100644 --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c @@ -951,14 +951,6 @@ void task_numa_work(struct callback_head *work) */ 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 - */ - if (migrate_ratelimited(numa_node_id())) - return; - start = mm->numa_scan_offset; pages = sysctl_numa_balancing_scan_size; pages <<= 20 - PAGE_SHIFT; /* MB in pages */ -- 1.8.4 -- 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>