On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 02:04:45PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > 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. >
That is my new favourite description of this portion of the scheduler :D > 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)? No problem. I had it prepared already and am just waiting for one result before I push send. Thanks. -- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs
