Hi.

On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 09:47:36AM +0800, 王贇 [off-list ref] wrote:

By monitoring the increments, we will be able to locate the per-cgroup
workload which NUMA Balancing can't helpwith (usually caused by wrong
CPU and memory node bindings), then we got chance to fix that in time.

I just wonder do the data based on increments match with those you
obtained previously?

+static inline void
+update_task_locality(struct task_struct *p, int pnid, int cnid, int pages)
+{
+	if (!static_branch_unlikely(&sched_numa_locality))
+		return;
+
+	/*
+	 * pnid != cnid --> remote idx 0
+	 * pnid == cnid --> local idx 1
+	 */
+	p->numa_page_access[!!(pnid == cnid)] += pages;

If the per-task information isn't used anywhere, why not accumulate
directly into task's cfs_rq->{local,remote}_page_access?

With the per-NUMA node time tracked separately, isn't it unnecessary
doing group updates inside entity_tick? 


Regards,
Michal