[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f8020f92-045e-d515-360b-faf9a149ab80@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 18:10:24 +0800
From: 王贇 <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 2019/7/12 下午5:42, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 05:11:25PM +0800, 王贇 wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2019/7/12 下午3:58, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> [snip]
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>
>> Could you please give more detail on this?
>
> Documentation/cgroup-v1/cpusets.txt
>
> Look for mems_allowed.
This is the attribute belong to cpuset cgroup isn't it?
Forgive me but I have no idea on how to combined this
with memory cgroup's locality hierarchical update...
parent memory cgroup do not have influence on mems_allowed
to it's children, correct?
What about we just account the locality status of child
memory group into it's ancestors?
Regards,
Michael Wang
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists