On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 05:11:31PM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:
> +static void
> +update_wa_numa_placement(struct task_struct *p, int prev_cpu, int target)
> +{
> + unsigned long interval;
> +
> + if (!static_branch_likely(&sched_numa_balancing))
> + return;
> +
> + /* If balancing has no preference then accept the target */
> + if (p->numa_preferred_nid == -1)
> + return;
> +
> + /* If the wakeup is not affecting locality then accept the target */
> + if (cpus_share_cache(prev_cpu, target))
> + return;
Both the above comments speak of 'accepting' the target, but its a void
function, there's nothing they can do about it. It cannot not accept the
placement.
> +
> + /*
> + * Temporarily prevent NUMA balancing trying to place waker/wakee after
> + * wakee has been moved by wake_affine. This will potentially allow
> + * related tasks to converge and update their data placement. The
> + * 4 * numa_scan_period is to allow the two-pass filter to migrate
> + * hot data to the wakers node.
> + */
> + interval = max(sysctl_numa_balancing_scan_delay,
> + p->numa_scan_period << 2);
> + p->numa_migrate_retry = jiffies + msecs_to_jiffies(interval);
> +
> + interval = max(sysctl_numa_balancing_scan_delay,
> + current->numa_scan_period << 2);
> + current->numa_migrate_retry = jiffies + msecs_to_jiffies(interval);
> +}
Otherwise that makes sense.
