[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1490109496.17719.15.camel@linux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 11:18:16 -0400
From: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...el.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...el.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ying Huang <ying.huang@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] mm: support parallel free of memory
On Thu, 2017-03-16 at 10:07 +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> > > the main problem is that kworkers will not belong to the same cpu group
> > > and so they will not be throttled properly.
> > You do have a point that this page freeing activities should strive to
> > affect other threads not in the same cgroup minimally.
> >
> > On the other hand, we also don't do this throttling of kworkers
> > today (e.g. pdflush) according to the cgroup it is doing work for.
> Yes, I am not saying this a new problem. I just wanted to point out that
> this is something to consider here. I believe this should be fixable.
> Worker can attach to the same cgroup the initiator had for example
> (assuming the cgroup core allows that which is something would have to
> be checked).
Instead of attaching the kworders to the cgroup of the initiator, I
wonder what people think about creating a separate kworker cgroup.
The administrator can set limit on its cpu resource bandwidth
if he/she does not want such kworkers perturbing the system.
Tim
Powered by blists - more mailing lists