Re: [PATCH -V3 2/2 UPDATE] NUMA balancing: avoid to migrate task to CPU-less node

[Huang, Ying]

Hi, Peter,

"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Hi, Peter,
>
> "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> In a typical memory tiering system, there's no CPU in slow (PMEM) NUMA
>> nodes.  But if the number of the hint page faults on a PMEM node is
>> the max for a task, The current NUMA balancing policy may try to place
>> the task on the PMEM node instead of DRAM node.  This is unreasonable,
>> because there's no CPU in PMEM NUMA nodes.  To fix this, CPU-less
>> nodes are ignored when searching the migration target node for a task
>> in this patch.
>>
>> To test the patch, we run a workload that accesses more memory in PMEM
>> node than memory in DRAM node.  Without the patch, the PMEM node will
>> be chosen as preferred node in task_numa_placement().  While the DRAM
>> node will be chosen instead with the patch.
>>
>> Known issue: I don't have systems to test complex NUMA topology type,
>> for example, NUMA_BACKPLANE or NUMA_GLUELESS_MESH.
>>
>> v3:
>>
>> - Fix a boot crash for some uncovered marginal condition.  Thanks Qian
>>   Cai for reporting and testing the bug!
>>
>> - Fix several missing places to use CPU-less nodes as migrating
>>   target.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Reported-and-tested-by: Qian Cai <quic_qiancai@xxxxxxxxxxx> # boot crash
>> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@xxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Can you update the patch to fix the bug?  Or you prefer the incremental
> patch?

Can you take a look at this?

Best Regards,
Huang, Ying