On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 11:35:48AM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote: > > However, if we have numa balancing enabled, that will counteract > > the normal spreading across nodes, so in that regard it makes sense, but > > the above code is not conditional on numa balancing. > > > > It's not conditional on NUMA balancing because one case where it mattered > was a fork-intensive workload driven by shell scripts. In that case, the > workload benefits from preferring a local node without any involvement from > NUMA balancing. I could make it conditional on it but it's not strictly > related to automatic NUMA balancing, it's about being less eager about > starting new children on remote nodes.
Yeah, I suppose. And you're right, there's no real winning this. It's all tea-leaves and entrails. In any case, I think I prefer the kill sync early variant and you were going to ammend some comments. Can you respin and resend all these patches (can do in a single series)?
