Re: [PATCH 2/4] sched,numa: weigh nearby nodes for task placement on complex NUMA topologies

[Rik van Riel]

On 05/09/2014 06:03 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 01:23:29PM -0400, riel@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >   static inline unsigned long task_weight(struct task_struct *p, int nid)
> >   {
> > -	unsigned long total_faults;
> > +	unsigned long total_faults, score;
> >
> >   	if (!p->numa_faults_memory)
> >   		return 0;
> > @@ -940,15 +997,32 @@ static inline unsigned long task_weight(struct task_struct *p, int nid)
> >   	if (!total_faults)
> >   		return 0;
> >
> > -	return 1000 * task_faults(p, nid) / total_faults;
> > +	score = 1000 * task_faults(p, nid);
> > +	score += nearby_nodes_score(p, nid, true);
> > +
> > +	score /= total_faults;
> > +
> > +	return score;
> >   }
>
> So you add an O(nr_nodes) loop to task_weight(), but that in itself is
> already called from O(nr_nodes) loops, yielding a total complexity of
> O(nr_nodes^2).

However, it only does actual calculations for nodes that
are closer by than the furthest away nodes in the system.

Hopefully on even the largest systems, that will mean an
"island" of a handful of nodes, with everything else being
at the same large distance.

> This might be fine, but algorithmic complexity should very much be a
> part of the changelog I think.

Agreed, I do need to document this kind of thing better,
if only because it gives people a chance to verify my
assumptions.

--
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/