From: Libo Chen <libo.chen@oracle.com>
To: "Chen, Yu C" <yu.c.chen@intel.com>
Cc: "Jain, Ayush" <ayushjai@amd.com>,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@redhat.com>, "Tejun Heo" <tj@kernel.org>,
"Johannes Weiner" <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
"Jonathan Corbet" <corbet@lwn.net>,
"Mel Gorman" <mgorman@suse.de>,
"Michal Hocko" <mhocko@kernel.org>,
"Muchun Song" <muchun.song@linux.dev>,
"Roman Gushchin" <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>,
"Shakeel Butt" <shakeel.butt@linux.dev>,
"Chen, Tim C" <tim.c.chen@intel.com>,
"Aubrey Li" <aubrey.li@intel.com>,
cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
"K Prateek Nayak" <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>,
"Madadi Vineeth Reddy" <vineethr@linux.ibm.com>,
Neeraj.Upadhyay@amd.com, "Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@infradead.org>,
"Michal Koutný" <mkoutny@suse.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] sched/numa: add statistics of numa balance task migration
Date: Tue, 6 May 2025 00:03:59 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <c1ec0cc1-8a1e-4db6-927e-5a1422f2c191@oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bc93c650-ba55-4434-98f6-3b7f556ae44b@intel.com>
On 5/5/25 22:36, Chen, Yu C wrote:
> On 5/6/2025 5:57 AM, Libo Chen wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 5/5/25 14:32, Libo Chen wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 5/5/25 11:49, Libo Chen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 5/5/25 11:27, Chen, Yu C wrote:
>>>>> Hi Michal,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 5/6/2025 1:46 AM, Michal Koutný wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, May 05, 2025 at 11:03:10PM +0800, "Chen, Yu C" <yu.c.chen@intel.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> According to this address,
>>>>>>> 4c 8b af 50 09 00 00 mov 0x950(%rdi),%r13 <--- r13 = p->mm;
>>>>>>> 49 8b bd 98 04 00 00 mov 0x498(%r13),%rdi <--- p->mm->owner
>>>>>>> It seems that this task to be swapped has NULL mm_struct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So it's likely a kernel thread. Does it make sense to NUMA balance
>>>>>> those? (I naïvely think it doesn't, please correct me.) ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree kernel threads are not supposed to be covered by
>>>>> NUMA balance, because currently NUMA balance only considers
>>>>> user pages via VMAs, and one question below:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> static void __migrate_swap_task(struct task_struct *p, int cpu)
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>> __schedstat_inc(p->stats.numa_task_swapped);
>>>>>>> - count_memcg_event_mm(p->mm, NUMA_TASK_SWAP);
>>>>>>> + if (p->mm)
>>>>>>> + count_memcg_event_mm(p->mm, NUMA_TASK_SWAP);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ... proper fix should likely guard this earlier, like the guard in
>>>>>> task_numa_fault() but for the other swapped task.
>>>>> I see. For task swapping in task_numa_compare(),
>>>>> it is triggered when there are no idle CPUs in task A's
>>>>> preferred node.
>>>>> In this case, we choose a task B on A's preferred node,
>>>>> and swap B with A. This helps improve A's Numa locality
>>>>> without introducing the load imbalance between Nodes.
>>>>>
>>> Hi Chenyu
>>>
>>> There are two problems here:
>>> 1. Many kthreads are pinned, with all the efforts in task_numa_compare()
>>> and task_numa_find_cpu(), the swapping may not end up happening. I only see a
>>> check on source task: cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, env->p->cpus_ptr) but not dst task.
>>
>> NVM I was blind. There is a check on dst task in task_numa_compare()
>>
>>> 2. Assuming B is migratable, that can potentially make B worse, right? I think
>>> some kthreads are quite cache-sensitive, and we swap like their locality doesn't
>>> matter.
>
> This makes sense. I wonder if it could be extended beyond kthreads.
> We don't want to swap task B that has no explicit NUMA preference,
> do we?
>
I agree, at least that should be the default behavior.
>>>
>>> Ideally we probably just want to stay off kthreads, if we cannot find any others
>>> p->mm tasks, just don't swap (?). That sounds like a brand new patch though.
>>>
>>
>> A change as simple as that should work:
>>
>> @@ -2492,7 +2492,7 @@ static bool task_numa_compare(struct task_numa_env *env,
>>
>> rcu_read_lock();
>> cur = rcu_dereference(dst_rq->curr);
>> - if (cur && ((cur->flags & PF_EXITING) || is_idle_task(cur)))
>> + if (cur && ((cur->flags & PF_EXITING) || !cur->mm || is_idle_task(cur)))
>
> something like
> if (cur && ((cur->flags & PF_EXITING) ||
> cur->numa_preferred_nid == NUMA_NO_NODE ||
> !cur->numa_faults || is_idle_task(cur)))
>
This implicitly skips kthreads, probably need some comment. Otherwise LGTM
> But overall it looks good to me, would you like to post this as a
> formal patch, or do you want me to fold your change into a patch set?
>
You can fold it into one set.
Thanks,
Libo
> thanks,
> Chenyu
>
>> cur = NULL;
>>
>
>
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>> Libo
>>>>> But B's Numa node preference is not mandatory in
>>>>> current implementation IIUC, because B's load is mainly
>>>>
>>>> hmm, that's doesn't seem to be right, can we choose B that
>>>> is not a kthread from A's preferred node?
>>>>
>>>>> considered. That is to say, is it legit to swap a
>>>>> Numa sensitive task A with a non-Numa sensitive kernel
>>>>> thread B? If not, I think we can add kernel thread
>>>>> check in task swap like the guard in
>>>>> task_tick_numa()/task_numa_fault().
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> thanks,
>>>>> Chenyu
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Michal
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-05-06 7:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-04-30 10:36 Chen Yu
2025-05-01 7:00 ` Libo Chen
2025-05-02 9:30 ` Chen, Yu C
2025-05-05 6:43 ` Jain, Ayush
2025-05-05 15:03 ` Chen, Yu C
2025-05-05 17:25 ` Venkat Rao Bagalkote
2025-05-07 11:36 ` Chen, Yu C
2025-05-05 17:46 ` Michal Koutný
2025-05-05 18:27 ` Chen, Yu C
2025-05-05 18:49 ` Libo Chen
2025-05-05 21:32 ` Libo Chen
2025-05-05 21:57 ` Libo Chen
2025-05-06 5:06 ` Jain, Ayush
2025-05-06 5:36 ` Chen, Yu C
2025-05-06 7:03 ` Libo Chen [this message]
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=c1ec0cc1-8a1e-4db6-927e-5a1422f2c191@oracle.com \
--to=libo.chen@oracle.com \
--cc=Neeraj.Upadhyay@amd.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=aubrey.li@intel.com \
--cc=ayushjai@amd.com \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=kprateek.nayak@amd.com \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=mkoutny@suse.com \
--cc=muchun.song@linux.dev \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=roman.gushchin@linux.dev \
--cc=shakeel.butt@linux.dev \
--cc=tim.c.chen@intel.com \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=vineethr@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=yu.c.chen@intel.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