* Srikar Dronamraju <sri...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> In commit:8a9e62a "sched/numa: Prefer NUMA hotness over cache hotness"
> sched feature NUMA was always set to true. However this sched feature was
> suppose to be enabled on NUMA boxes only thro set_numabalancing_state().
>
> To get back to the above behaviour, bring back NUMA_FAVOUR_HIGHER feature.
Three typos and a non-standard commit ID reference.
> /*
> + * NUMA_FAVOUR_HIGHER will favor moving tasks towards nodes where a
> + * higher number of hinting faults are recorded during active load
> + * balancing. It will resist moving tasks towards nodes where a lower
> + * number of hinting faults have been recorded.
> */
> -SCHED_FEAT(NUMA, true)
> +SCHED_FEAT(NUMA_FAVOUR_HIGHER, true)
> #endif
>
So the comment spells 'favor' American, the constant you introduce is British
spelling via 'FAVOUR'? Please use it consistently!
Also, this name is totally non-intuitive.
Make it something like NUMA_FAVOR_BUSY_NODES or so?
Also, I'm wondering how this can schedule in a stable fashion: if a non-busy
node
is not favored, how can we end up there to start building up hinting faults?
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/
