Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] sched/numa: Replace runnable_load_avg by load_avg

From: Mel Gorman
Date: Tue Feb 18 2020 - 10:38:11 EST


On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 02:54:14PM +0000, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> On 2/14/20 3:27 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > @@ -1473,38 +1473,35 @@ bool should_numa_migrate_memory(struct task_struct *p, struct page * page,
> > group_faults_cpu(ng, src_nid) * group_faults(p, dst_nid) * 4;
> > }
> >
> > -static inline unsigned long cfs_rq_runnable_load_avg(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq);
> > -
> > -static unsigned long cpu_runnable_load(struct rq *rq)
> > -{
> > - return cfs_rq_runnable_load_avg(&rq->cfs);
> > -}
> > +/*
> > + * 'numa_type' describes the node at the moment of load balancing.
> > + */
> > +enum numa_type {
> > + /* The node has spare capacity that can be used to run more tasks. */
> > + node_has_spare = 0,
> > + /*
> > + * The node is fully used and the tasks don't compete for more CPU
> > + * cycles. Nevertheless, some tasks might wait before running.
> > + */
> > + node_fully_busy,
> > + /*
> > + * The node is overloaded and can't provide expected CPU cycles to all
> > + * tasks.
> > + */
> > + node_overloaded
> > +};
>
> Could we reuse group_type instead? The definitions are the same modulo
> s/group/node/.
>

I kept the naming because there is the remote possibility that NUMA
balancing will deviate in some fashion. Right now, it's harmless.

> >
> > /* Cached statistics for all CPUs within a node */
> > struct numa_stats {
> > unsigned long load;
> > -
> > + unsigned long util;
> > /* Total compute capacity of CPUs on a node */
> > unsigned long compute_capacity;
> > + unsigned int nr_running;
> > + unsigned int weight;
> > + enum numa_type node_type;
> > };
> >
> > -/*
> > - * XXX borrowed from update_sg_lb_stats
> > - */
> > -static void update_numa_stats(struct numa_stats *ns, int nid)
> > -{
> > - int cpu;
> > -
> > - memset(ns, 0, sizeof(*ns));
> > - for_each_cpu(cpu, cpumask_of_node(nid)) {
> > - struct rq *rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
> > -
> > - ns->load += cpu_runnable_load(rq);
> > - ns->compute_capacity += capacity_of(cpu);
> > - }
> > -
> > -}
> > -
> > struct task_numa_env {
> > struct task_struct *p;
> >
> > @@ -1521,6 +1518,47 @@ struct task_numa_env {
> > int best_cpu;
> > };
> >
> > +static unsigned long cpu_load(struct rq *rq);
> > +static unsigned long cpu_util(int cpu);
> > +
> > +static inline enum
> > +numa_type numa_classify(unsigned int imbalance_pct,
> > + struct numa_stats *ns)
> > +{
> > + if ((ns->nr_running > ns->weight) &&
> > + ((ns->compute_capacity * 100) < (ns->util * imbalance_pct)))
> > + return node_overloaded;
> > +
> > + if ((ns->nr_running < ns->weight) ||
> > + ((ns->compute_capacity * 100) > (ns->util * imbalance_pct)))
> > + return node_has_spare;
> > +
> > + return node_fully_busy;
> > +}
> > +
>
> As Mel pointed out, this is group_is_overloaded() and group_has_capacity().
> @Mel, you mentioned having a common helper, do you have that laying around?
> I haven't seen it in your reconciliation series.
>

I didn't merge that part of the first version of my series. I was
waiting to see how the implementation for allowing a small degree of
imbalance looks like. If it's entirely confined in adjust_numa_balance
then I'll create the common helper at the same time. For now, I left the
possibility open that numa_classify would use something different than
group_is_overloaded or group_has_capacity even if I find that hard to
imagine at the moment.

> What I'm naively thinking here is that we could have either move the whole
> thing to just sg_lb_stats (AFAICT the fields of numa_stats are a subset of it),
> or if we really care about the stack we could tweak the ordering to ensure
> we can cast one into the other (not too enticed by that one though).
>

Yikes, no I'd rather not do that. Basically all I did before was create
a common helper like __lb_has_capacity that only took basic types as
parameters. group_has_capacity and numa_has_capacity were simple wrappers
that read the correct fields from their respective stats structures.

--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs