From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755537Ab3F1KY0 (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Jun 2013 06:24:26 -0400 Received: from e39.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.160]:42455 "EHLO e39.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755305Ab3F1KYY (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Jun 2013 06:24:24 -0400 Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 15:54:04 +0530 From: Srikar Dronamraju To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Mel Gorman , Ingo Molnar , Andrea Arcangeli , Johannes Weiner , Linux-MM , LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/8] sched: Select a preferred node with the most numa hinting faults Message-ID: <20130628102404.GE8362@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: Srikar Dronamraju References: <1372257487-9749-1-git-send-email-mgorman@suse.de> <1372257487-9749-4-git-send-email-mgorman@suse.de> <20130628061428.GB17195@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20130628085956.GB28407@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130628085956.GB28407@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-TM-AS-MML: No X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 13062810-3620-0000-0000-00000354605D Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > > > > > > struct rcu_head rcu; > > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c > > > index f332ec0..019baae 100644 > > > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c > > > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c > > > @@ -1593,6 +1593,7 @@ static void __sched_fork(struct task_struct *p) > > > p->numa_scan_seq = p->mm ? p->mm->numa_scan_seq : 0; > > > p->numa_migrate_seq = p->mm ? p->mm->numa_scan_seq - 1 : 0; > > > p->numa_scan_period = sysctl_numa_balancing_scan_delay; > > > + p->numa_preferred_nid = -1; > > > > Though we may not want to inherit faults, I think the tasks generally > > share pages with their siblings, parent. So will it make sense to > > inherit the preferred node? > > One of the patches I have locally wipes the numa state on exec(). I > think we want to do that if we're going to think about inheriting stuff. > > Agree, if we inherit the preferred node, we would have to reset on exec. Since we have to reset the numa_faults also on exec, the reset of preferred node can go in task_numa_free -- Thanks and Regards Srikar Dronamraju