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@xxxxxxxxx> 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.
>
> 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)))
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
>>>
>>
>
