linux-stable.git/kernel/sched/fair.c, branch v3.8

sched: Fix warning in kernel/sched/fair.c

2013-01-25T14:23:14+00:00

a4c96ae319 "sched: Unthrottle rt runqueues in
__disable_runtime()" turned the unthrottle_offline_cfs_rqs
function into a static symbol, which now triggers a warning
about it being potentially unused:

  kernel/sched/fair.c:2055:13: warning: 'unthrottle_offline_cfs_rqs' defined but not used [-Wunused-function]

Marking it __maybe_unused shuts up the gcc warning and lets the
compiler safely drop the function body when it's not being used.

To reproduce, build the ARM bcm2835_defconfig.

Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann 
Cc: Peter Boonstoppel 
Cc: Peter Zijlstra 
Cc: Paul Turner 
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@list.infradead.org
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1359123276-15833-6-git-send-email-arnd@arndb.de
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar

sched: numa: ksm: fix oops in task_numa_placment()

2012-12-20T15:06:56+00:00

task_numa_placement() oopsed on NULL p->mm when task_numa_fault() got
called in the handling of break_ksm() for ksmd.  That might be a
peculiar case, which perhaps KSM could takes steps to avoid? but it's
more robust if task_numa_placement() allows for such a possibility.

Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins 
Acked-by: Mel Gorman 
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds

sched: numa: Fix build error if CONFIG_NUMA_BALANCING && !CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE

2012-12-17T16:25:50+00:00

Michal Hocko reported that the following build error occurs if
CONFIG_NUMA_BALANCING is set without THP support

  kernel/sched/fair.c: In function ‘task_numa_work’:
  kernel/sched/fair.c:932:55: error: call to ‘__build_bug_failed’ declared with attribute error: BUILD_BUG failed

The problem is that HPAGE_PMD_SHIFT triggers a BUILD_BUG() on
!CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE. This patch addresses the problem.

Reported-by: Michal Hocko 
Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman 
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds

Merge tag 'balancenuma-v11' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mel/linux-balancenuma

2012-12-16T23:18:08+00:00

Pull Automatic NUMA Balancing bare-bones from Mel Gorman:
 "There are three implementations for NUMA balancing, this tree
  (balancenuma), numacore which has been developed in tip/master and
  autonuma which is in aa.git.

  In almost all respects balancenuma is the dumbest of the three because
  its main impact is on the VM side with no attempt to be smart about
  scheduling.  In the interest of getting the ball rolling, it would be
  desirable to see this much merged for 3.8 with the view to building
  scheduler smarts on top and adapting the VM where required for 3.9.

  The most recent set of comparisons available from different people are

    mel:    https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/12/9/108
    mingo:  https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/12/7/331
    tglx:   https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/12/10/437
    srikar: https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/12/10/397

  The results are a mixed bag.  In my own tests, balancenuma does
  reasonably well.  It's dumb as rocks and does not regress against
  mainline.  On the other hand, Ingo's tests shows that balancenuma is
  incapable of converging for this workloads driven by perf which is bad
  but is potentially explained by the lack of scheduler smarts.  Thomas'
  results show balancenuma improves on mainline but falls far short of
  numacore or autonuma.  Srikar's results indicate we all suffer on a
  large machine with imbalanced node sizes.

  My own testing showed that recent numacore results have improved
  dramatically, particularly in the last week but not universally.
  We've butted heads heavily on system CPU usage and high levels of
  migration even when it shows that overall performance is better.
  There are also cases where it regresses.  Of interest is that for
  specjbb in some configurations it will regress for lower numbers of
  warehouses and show gains for higher numbers which is not reported by
  the tool by default and sometimes missed in treports.  Recently I
  reported for numacore that the JVM was crashing with
  NullPointerExceptions but currently it's unclear what the source of
  this problem is.  Initially I thought it was in how numacore batch
  handles PTEs but I'm no longer think this is the case.  It's possible
  numacore is just able to trigger it due to higher rates of migration.

  These reports were quite late in the cycle so I/we would like to start
  with this tree as it contains much of the code we can agree on and has
  not changed significantly over the last 2-3 weeks."

* tag 'balancenuma-v11' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mel/linux-balancenuma: (50 commits)
  mm/rmap, migration: Make rmap_walk_anon() and try_to_unmap_anon() more scalable
  mm/rmap: Convert the struct anon_vma::mutex to an rwsem
  mm: migrate: Account a transhuge page properly when rate limiting
  mm: numa: Account for failed allocations and isolations as migration failures
  mm: numa: Add THP migration for the NUMA working set scanning fault case build fix
  mm: numa: Add THP migration for the NUMA working set scanning fault case.
  mm: sched: numa: Delay PTE scanning until a task is scheduled on a new node
  mm: sched: numa: Control enabling and disabling of NUMA balancing if !SCHED_DEBUG
  mm: sched: numa: Control enabling and disabling of NUMA balancing
  mm: sched: Adapt the scanning rate if a NUMA hinting fault does not migrate
  mm: numa: Use a two-stage filter to restrict pages being migrated for unlikely task<->node relationships
  mm: numa: migrate: Set last_nid on newly allocated page
  mm: numa: split_huge_page: Transfer last_nid on tail page
  mm: numa: Introduce last_nid to the page frame
  sched: numa: Slowly increase the scanning period as NUMA faults are handled
  mm: numa: Rate limit setting of pte_numa if node is saturated
  mm: numa: Rate limit the amount of memory that is migrated between nodes
  mm: numa: Structures for Migrate On Fault per NUMA migration rate limiting
  mm: numa: Migrate pages handled during a pmd_numa hinting fault
  mm: numa: Migrate on reference policy
  ...

Revert "sched: Update_cfs_shares at period edge"

2012-12-14T15:20:43+00:00

This reverts commit f269ae0469fc882332bdfb5db15d3c1315fe2a10.

It turns out it causes a very noticeable interactivity regression with
CONFIG_SCHED_AUTOGROUP (test-case: "make -j32" of the kernel in a
terminal window, while scrolling in a browser - the autogrouping means
that the two end up in separate cgroups, and the browser should be
smooth as silk despite the high load).

Says Paul Turner:
 "It seems that the update-throttling on the wake-side is reducing the
  interactive tasks' ability to preempt.  While I suspect the right
  longer term answer here is force these updates only in the
  cross-cgroup case; this is less trivial.  For this release I believe
  the right answer is either going to be a revert or restore the updates
  on the enqueue-side."

Reported-by: Linus Torvalds 
Bisected-by: Mike Galbraith 
Acked-by: Paul Turner 
Acked-by: Ingo Molnar 
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds

mm: sched: numa: Delay PTE scanning until a task is scheduled on a new node

2012-12-11T14:42:56+00:00

Due to the fact that migrations are driven by the CPU a task is running
on there is no point tracking NUMA faults until one task runs on a new
node. This patch tracks the first node used by an address space. Until
it changes, PTE scanning is disabled and no NUMA hinting faults are
trapped. This should help workloads that are short-lived, do not care
about NUMA placement or have bound themselves to a single node.

This takes advantage of the logic in "mm: sched: numa: Implement slow
start for working set sampling" to delay when the checks are made. This
will take advantage of processes that set their CPU and node bindings
early in their lifetime. It will also potentially allow any initial load
balancing to take place.

Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman

mm: sched: numa: Control enabling and disabling of NUMA balancing

2012-12-11T14:42:55+00:00

This patch adds Kconfig options and kernel parameters to allow the
enabling and disabling of automatic NUMA balancing. The existance
of such a switch was and is very important when debugging problems
related to transparent hugepages and we should have the same for
automatic NUMA placement.

Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman

mm: sched: Adapt the scanning rate if a NUMA hinting fault does not migrate

2012-12-11T14:42:55+00:00

The PTE scanning rate and fault rates are two of the biggest sources of
system CPU overhead with automatic NUMA placement.  Ideally a proper policy
would detect if a workload was properly placed, schedule and adjust the
PTE scanning rate accordingly. We do not track the necessary information
to do that but we at least know if we migrated or not.

This patch scans slower if a page was not migrated as the result of a
NUMA hinting fault up to sysctl_numa_balancing_scan_period_max which is
now higher than the previous default. Once every minute it will reset
the scanner in case of phase changes.

This is hilariously crude and the numbers are arbitrary. Workloads will
converge quite slowly in comparison to what a proper policy should be able
to do. On the plus side, we will chew up less CPU for workloads that have
no need for automatic balancing.

Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman

sched: numa: Slowly increase the scanning period as NUMA faults are handled

2012-12-11T14:42:51+00:00

Currently the rate of scanning for an address space is controlled
by the individual tasks. The next scan is simply determined by
2*p->numa_scan_period.

The 2*p->numa_scan_period is arbitrary and never changes. At this point
there is still no proper policy that decides if a task or process is
properly placed. It just scans and assumes the next NUMA fault will
place it properly. As it is assumed that pages will get properly placed
over time, increase the scan window each time a fault is incurred. This
is a big assumption as noted in the comments.

It should be noted that changing to p->numa_scan_period will increase
system CPU usage because now the scanning rate has effectively doubled.
If that is a problem then the min_rate should be made 200ms instead of
restoring the 2* logic.

Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman

mm: numa: Rate limit setting of pte_numa if node is saturated

2012-12-11T14:42:51+00:00

If there are a large number of NUMA hinting faults and all of them
are resulting in migrations it may indicate that memory is just
bouncing uselessly around. NUMA balancing cost is likely exceeding
any benefit from locality. Rate limit the PTE updates if the node
is migration rate-limited. As noted in the comments, this distorts
the NUMA faulting statistics.

Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman