[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b027f9cc-edd2-840c-3829-176a1e298446@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 11:43:17 +0800
From: ηθ΄ <yun.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: hannes@...xchg.org, mhocko@...nel.org, vdavydov.dev@...il.com,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, mcgrof@...nel.org, keescook@...omium.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, riel@...riel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] numa: introduce per-cgroup numa balancing locality,
statistic
On 2019/7/11 δΈε9:47, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
[snip]
>> + rcu_read_lock();
>> + memcg = mem_cgroup_from_task(p);
>> + if (idx != -1)
>> + this_cpu_inc(memcg->stat_numa->locality[idx]);
>
> I thought cgroups were supposed to be hierarchical. That is, if we have:
>
> R
> / \
> A
> /\
> B
> \
> t1
>
> Then our task t1 should be accounted to B (as you do), but also to A and
> R.
I get the point but not quite sure about this...
Not like pages there are no hierarchical limitation on locality, also tasks
running in a particular group have no influence to others, not to mention the
extra overhead, does it really meaningful to account the stuff hierarchically?
Regards,
Michael Wang
>
>> + rcu_read_unlock();
>> +}
>> +#endif
Powered by blists - more mailing lists