From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BB15C04A94 for ; Mon, 31 Jul 2023 23:52:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230413AbjGaXwa (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Jul 2023 19:52:30 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:57248 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230342AbjGaXwZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Jul 2023 19:52:25 -0400 Received: from mail-pl1-x631.google.com (mail-pl1-x631.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::631]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B7F91736 for ; Mon, 31 Jul 2023 16:52:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pl1-x631.google.com with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-1bb81809ca8so40262475ad.3 for ; Mon, 31 Jul 2023 16:52:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1690847543; x=1691452343; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:sender:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=QY6TrGgRbolQvDwJetzrA5+Cwmb7LM9vP/Acoe/k5eA=; b=GJBsZXr0HBXQgvZEWM5ORpxG9Wtr/vc6FLEJwGWTg2FpH2NKbZHTwQKDKrK2QbQ1jS ggtPel5QGmViGG/rj0anM0DcAWFGHoD4xjVVJmcvucGaAzy59th6b1uyVG54uoCp+9Fm LIKgX5m1MhwiSXubCvSKn7hcdy7D0vBt1IZnK2eWB/UzVvUBXo24m4Ic9M5T8jHygrja pMJ4LhrE5/MesoWcxSKb4eXpIOpgXrYbJR3jQeyTg3LrSNI/yLI7YgS/cQs3bvh2QoA5 ABcFb+yyPjqsHz2albEkQzzDMZsLL40rjD5OdjPwoP4dnZMXRRH2fHGKSF8H+CeWHk50 0VKw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1690847543; x=1691452343; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:sender:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=QY6TrGgRbolQvDwJetzrA5+Cwmb7LM9vP/Acoe/k5eA=; b=OcW7L642e/Ir3wwk/IxvsHvQLOdZzukEpLR0DccZP6g4MKVV0TtAU9zcvHQbLhHe9d 9YRexY+GvpL3BqJWOhC/Oy6LnUNqPITpQG+pQ4Ri4ZoTm3HpRjio/XKCaxVgrZ5OTH3t K8bfncccJeEFYADIe4WikoeaXpLA0zfx3akbQdpmnqeiXiD+TT+lPRn9ekxEgf1MuI5M s697OJOqS6KHJr9ZGUixU223HvlUzlcgYUwIMmgjTHJNsV1wVyJb3cPZppu4KEhGGFaU fmxyBByvUjfi+HR8MfSIic7lLPSTEIFJbtBFtmc0v71fiAzTUnAUGBV3HhTyufrCeMhN vrKA== X-Gm-Message-State: ABy/qLZlj/c3EwPkXeCT05FZ6fWKdhc1V79upySOoJ8tquS2tI3chnJh 0o/cmXheZ627wS1Y4mX8yhE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APBJJlHVP+HYHXV462gHbEjQ5dM5RjCRJlym6+hpwWwxI6hBoa9GFDNTl8Gz2AL8+rpRV68ys60E3A== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:ea0d:b0:1b8:6cac:ffe8 with SMTP id s13-20020a170902ea0d00b001b86cacffe8mr12773588plg.51.1690847543492; Mon, 31 Jul 2023 16:52:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([2620:10d:c090:400::5:4a3a]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id iw13-20020a170903044d00b001b0358848b0sm4052701plb.161.2023.07.31.16.52.22 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 31 Jul 2023 16:52:23 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Tejun Heo Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2023 13:52:21 -1000 From: Tejun Heo To: K Prateek Nayak Cc: Sandeep Dhavale , jiangshanlai@gmail.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, peterz@infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@meta.com, joshdon@google.com, brho@google.com, briannorris@chromium.org, nhuck@google.com, agk@redhat.com, snitzer@kernel.org, void@manifault.com, kernel-team@android.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/24] workqueue: Generalize unbound CPU pods Message-ID: References: <20230519001709.2563-1-tj@kernel.org> <20230519001709.2563-15-tj@kernel.org> <4bb4c12b-4f8d-1069-6fe8-fe256292a763@amd.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4bb4c12b-4f8d-1069-6fe8-fe256292a763@amd.com> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello, On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 08:32:27AM +0530, K Prateek Nayak wrote: > > Yeah, that's a bit surprising given that in terms of affinity behavior > > "numa" should be identical to base. The only meaningful differences that I > > can think of is when the work item is assigned to its worker and maybe how > > pwq max_active limit is applied. Hmm... can you monitor the number of > > kworker kthreads while running the benchmark? No need to do the whole > > matrix, just comparing base against numa should be enough. > > Sure. I'll get back to you with the data soon. Any updates? I'd like to proceed with the patchset as it helps resolving problems others are reporting. I can try to reproduce the results too if you can share more details on how they're run. Thanks. -- tejun