Re: [rfc] balance-on-fork NUMA placement

[Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>]

On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 10:01:14AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de> wrote:
> 
> > This patch uses memory policies to attempt to improve this. It 
> > requires that we ask the scheduler to suggest the child's new CPU 
> > earlier in the fork, but that is not a fundamental difference.
> 
> no fundamental objections, but i think we could simply move sched_fork() 
> to the following place:
> 
> > @@ -989,10 +990,13 @@ static struct task_struct *copy_process(
> >  	if (retval)
> >  		goto fork_out;
> >  
> > +	cpu = sched_fork_suggest_cpu(clone_flags);
> > +	mpol_arg = mpol_prefer_cpu_start(cpu);
> > +
> >  	retval = -ENOMEM;
> >  	p = dup_task_struct(current);
> >  	if (!p)
> > -		goto fork_out;
> > +		goto fork_mpol;
> >  
> >  	rt_mutex_init_task(p);
> 
> 
> _after_ the dup_task_struct(). Then change sched_fork() to return a CPU 
> number - hence we dont have a separate sched_fork_suggest_cpu() 
> initialization function, only one, obvious sched_fork() function. 
> Agreed?

That puts task struct, kernel stack, thread info on the wrong node.

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>