[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190712075815.GN3402@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 09:58:15 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: 王贇 <yun.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
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 Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 11:43:17AM +0800, 王贇 wrote:
>
>
> On 2019/7/11 下午9:47, 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
You can use cpusets to affect that.
> 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?
AFAIU it's a requirement of cgroups to be hierarchical. All our other
cgroup accounting is like that.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists