* Ingo Molnar <mi...@kernel.org> wrote:
> * Alex Shi <lkml.a...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > 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 from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
