From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-bk0-f41.google.com (mail-bk0-f41.google.com [209.85.214.41]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0BAF6B0035 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 11:31:23 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-bk0-f41.google.com with SMTP id na10so287143bkb.0 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2014 08:31:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from merlin.infradead.org (merlin.infradead.org. [2001:4978:20e::2]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id qw9si2050101bkb.1.2014.01.20.08.31.21 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 20 Jan 2014 08:31:21 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 17:31:03 +0100 From: Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7] numa,sched: build per numa_group active node mask from faults_from statistics Message-ID: <20140120163103.GI31570@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <1389993129-28180-1-git-send-email-riel@redhat.com> <1389993129-28180-4-git-send-email-riel@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1389993129-28180-4-git-send-email-riel@redhat.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: riel@redhat.com Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, chegu_vinod@hp.com, mgorman@suse.de, mingo@redhat.com On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 04:12:05PM -0500, riel@redhat.com wrote: > /* > + * Iterate over the nodes from which NUMA hinting faults were triggered, in > + * other words where the CPUs that incurred NUMA hinting faults are. The > + * bitmask is used to limit NUMA page migrations, and spread out memory > + * between the actively used nodes. To prevent flip-flopping, and excessive > + * page migrations, nodes are added when they cause over 40% of the maximum > + * number of faults, but only removed when they drop below 20%. > + */ > +static void update_numa_active_node_mask(struct task_struct *p) > +{ > + unsigned long faults, max_faults = 0; > + struct numa_group *numa_group = p->numa_group; > + int nid; > + > + for_each_online_node(nid) { > + faults = numa_group->faults_from[task_faults_idx(nid, 0)] + > + numa_group->faults_from[task_faults_idx(nid, 1)]; > + if (faults > max_faults) > + max_faults = faults; > + } > + > + for_each_online_node(nid) { > + faults = numa_group->faults_from[task_faults_idx(nid, 0)] + > + numa_group->faults_from[task_faults_idx(nid, 1)]; > + if (!node_isset(nid, numa_group->active_nodes)) { > + if (faults > max_faults * 4 / 10) > + node_set(nid, numa_group->active_nodes); > + } else if (faults < max_faults * 2 / 10) > + node_clear(nid, numa_group->active_nodes); > + } > +} Why not use 6/16 and 3/16 resp.? That avoids an actual division. -- 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: email@kvack.org