* Ingo Molnar [off-list ref] wrote:

* Alex Shi [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

quoted

Those of you who would like to test all the latest patches are
welcome to pick up latest bits at tip:master:

   git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git master

I am wondering if it is a problem, but it still exists on HEAD: c418de93e39891
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.mm/90131/match=compiled+with+name+pl+and+start+it+on+my

like when just start 4 pl tasks, often 3 were running on node 
0, and 1 was running on node 1. The old balance will average 
assign tasks to different node, different core.

This is "normal" in the sense that the current mainline 
scheduler is (supposed to be) doing something similar: if the 
node is still within capacity, then there's no reason to move 
those threads.

OTOH, I think with NUMA balancing we indeed want to spread 
them better, if those tasks do not share memory with each 
other but use their own memory. If they share memory then they 
should remain on the same node if possible.

Could you please check tip:master with -v17:

  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git master

?

It should place your workload better than v16 did.

Note, you might be able to find other combinations of tasks that 
are not scheduled NUMA-perfectly yet, as task group placement is 
not exhaustive yet.

You might want to check which combination looks the weirdest to 
you and report it, so I can fix any remaining placement 
inefficiencies in order of importance.

Thanks,

	Ingo

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>