Re: numa/core regressions fixed - more testers wanted

[Ingo Molnar]

* 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 from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/