From: Gregory Price <gourry@gourry.net>
To: Li Zhe <lizhe.67@bytedance.com>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, david@kernel.org, ljs@kernel.org,
joshua.hahnjy@gmail.com, ziy@nvidia.com, mingo@redhat.com,
peterz@infradead.org, mgorman@suse.de, riel@redhat.com,
juri.lelli@redhat.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org,
dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, rostedt@goodmis.org,
bsegall@google.com, vschneid@redhat.com, kprateek.nayak@amd.com,
linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] sched/numa: fix scan-period adjustment for shared faults
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2026 12:02:23 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <atD3qhbqzN2R9Bxx@gourry-fedora-PF4VCD3F> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9b9e6c92-a291-48b4-a128-c31bc718db7a@bytedance.com>
On Thu, Oct 15, 2026 at 07:39:42PM +0800, Li Zhe wrote:
> So I think I should separate the severe fixes from the heuristic changes.
This would be appreciated. The heuristic changes that aren't obvious
Fixes: should not be lumped in.
> For the latter, I will narrow the next version to NUMA balancing behavior
> that is specific to memory tiering, instead of trying to justify the
> changes as general improvements for normal NUMA balancing workloads.
For heuristic changes, please try to generate some kind of data that
demonstrate the behavior being changed. Some of this scan-period tweaking
is very difficult to understand how it will affect end-users without
examples.
There's risk of introducing unexpected regressions when we change these
heuristics. For example - the recent shmem scanning fix. Fixing that
resulted in 4-5 other regressions, despite being a "correctness" change.
~Gregory
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-10-15 16:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-10-14 9:43 [PATCH 0/6] sched/numa: fix several NUMA balancing issues Li Zhe
2026-10-14 9:43 ` [PATCH 1/6] sched/numa: clear fault locality state on execve Li Zhe
2026-10-14 13:02 ` Gregory Price
2026-10-15 3:41 ` Li Zhe
2026-10-14 9:43 ` [PATCH 2/6] sched/numa: fix scan-period ratio denominator checks Li Zhe
2026-10-14 12:56 ` Gregory Price
2026-10-15 3:49 ` Li Zhe
2026-10-14 9:43 ` [PATCH 3/6] sched/numa: fix scan-period adjustment for shared faults Li Zhe
2026-10-14 13:12 ` Gregory Price
2026-10-15 11:39 ` Li Zhe
2026-10-15 16:02 ` Gregory Price [this message]
2026-10-14 9:43 ` [PATCH 4/6] sched/numa: make free-space tiering promotion bypass configurable Li Zhe
2026-10-14 13:16 ` Gregory Price
2026-10-15 4:09 ` Li Zhe
2026-10-14 9:43 ` [PATCH 5/6] sched/numa: do not feed tiering promotions into task placement stats Li Zhe
2026-10-14 13:26 ` Gregory Price
2026-10-15 5:07 ` kernel test robot
2026-10-15 5:07 ` kernel test robot
2026-10-14 9:43 ` [PATCH 6/6] sched/numa: ignore preferred nodes without normal balancing Li Zhe
2026-10-14 13:30 ` Gregory Price
2026-10-15 11:44 ` Li Zhe
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=atD3qhbqzN2R9Bxx@gourry-fedora-PF4VCD3F \
--to=gourry@gourry.net \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=david@kernel.org \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=joshua.hahnjy@gmail.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=kprateek.nayak@amd.com \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=lizhe.67@bytedance.com \
--cc=ljs@kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=vschneid@redhat.com \
--cc=ziy@nvidia.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®