From: Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org>
Avoiding marking PTEs pte_numa because a particular NUMA node is migrate rate
limited sees like a bad idea. Even if this node can't migrate anymore other
nodes might and we want up-to-date information to do balance decisions.
We already rate limit the actual migrations, this should leave enough
bandwidth to allow the non-migrating scanning. I think its important we
keep up-to-date information if we're going to do placement based on it.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgor...@suse.de>
---
kernel/sched/fair.c | 8 --------
1 file changed, 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index 2a08727..cc2ee69 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -951,14 +951,6 @@ void task_numa_work(struct callback_head *work)
*/
p->node_stamp += 2 * TICK_NSEC;
- /*
- * Do not set pte_numa if the current running node is rate-limited.
- * This loses statistics on the fault but if we are unwilling to
- * migrate to this node, it is less likely we can do useful work
- */
- if (migrate_ratelimited(numa_node_id()))
- return;
-
start = mm->numa_scan_offset;
pages = sysctl_numa_balancing_scan_size;
pages <<= 20 - PAGE_SHIFT; /* MB in pages */
--
1.8.1.4
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
