[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       linux-api
Subject:    Re: [External] Re: [PATCH v1] sched/numa: add per-process numa_balancing
From:       李港 <ligang.bdlg () bytedance ! com>
Date:       2021-10-29 7:48:50
Message-ID: CAMx52AR2h_RifrFPyu4WA3YDij9epuApOzG1zbH9F6pK4m7b9Q () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 11:30 PM Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de> wrote:
>
> That aside though, the configuration space could be better. It's possible
> to selectively disable NUMA balance but not selectively enable because
> prctl is disabled if global NUMA balancing is disabled. That could be
> somewhat achieved by having a default value for mm->numa_balancing based on
> whether the global numa balancing is disabled via command line or sysctl
> and enabling the static branch if prctl is used with an informational
> message. This is not the only potential solution but as it stands,
> there are odd semantic corner cases. For example, explicit enabling
> of NUMA balancing by prctl gets silently revoked if numa balancing is
> disabled via sysctl and prctl(PR_NUMA_BALANCING, PR_SET_NUMA_BALANCING,
> 1) means nothing.

static void task_tick_fair(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *curr, int queued)
{
    ...
    if (static_branch_unlikely(&sched_numa_balancing))
        task_tick_numa(rq, curr);
    ...
}

static void task_tick_numa(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *curr)
{
    ...
    if (!READ_ONCE(curr->mm->numa_balancing))
        return;
    ...
}

When global numa_balancing is disabled, mm->numa_balancing is useless.
So I think
prctl(PR_NUMA_BALANCING, PR_SET_NUMA_BALANCING,0/1) should return an
error instead of modifying mm->numa_balancing.

Is it reasonable that prctl(PR_NUMA_BALANCING,PR_SET_NUMA_BALANCING,0/1)
can still change the value of mm->numa_balancing when global numa_balancing is
disabled?
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]