lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
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