Re: [PATCH] sched,numa: document and fix numa_preferred_nid setting

[Ingo Molnar]

* Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> >  	if (p->numa_group) {
> >  		if (env.best_cpu == -1)
> > @@ -1513,7 +1520,7 @@ static int task_numa_migrate(struct task_struct *p)
> >  			nid = env.dst_nid;
> > 
> >  		if (node_isset(nid, p->numa_group->active_nodes))
> > -			sched_setnuma(p, env.dst_nid);
> > +			sched_setnuma(p, nid);
> >  	}
> > 
> >  	/* No better CPU than the current one was found. */
> > 
> 
> Overall this patch does seem to produce better results. However numa02
> gets affected -vely.

Huh?

numa02 is the more important benchmark of the two. 'numa01' is a conflicting 
workload that is a lot more sensitive to balancing details - while 'numa02' is a 
nicely partitioned workload that should converge as fast as possible.

So if numa02 got worse then it's a bad change.

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/