lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Jul]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 09/10] psi: cgroup support
Hi Peter,

On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 05:40:59PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 01:29:41PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > +/**
> > + * cgroup_move_task - move task to a different cgroup
> > + * @task: the task
> > + * @to: the target css_set
> > + *
> > + * Move task to a new cgroup and safely migrate its associated stall
> > + * state between the different groups.
> > + *
> > + * This function acquires the task's rq lock to lock out concurrent
> > + * changes to the task's scheduling state and - in case the task is
> > + * running - concurrent changes to its stall state.
> > + */
> > +void cgroup_move_task(struct task_struct *task, struct css_set *to)
> > +{
> > + unsigned int task_flags = 0;
> > + struct rq_flags rf;
> > + struct rq *rq;
> > + u64 now;
> > +
> > + rq = task_rq_lock(task, &rf);
> > +
> > + if (task_on_rq_queued(task)) {
> > + task_flags = TSK_RUNNING;
> > + } else if (task->in_iowait) {
> > + task_flags = TSK_IOWAIT;
> > + }
> > + if (task->flags & PF_MEMSTALL)
> > + task_flags |= TSK_MEMSTALL;
> > +
> > + if (task_flags) {
> > + update_rq_clock(rq);
> > + now = rq_clock(rq);
> > + psi_task_change(task, now, task_flags, 0);
> > + }
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Lame to do this here, but the scheduler cannot be locked
> > + * from the outside, so we move cgroups from inside sched/.
> > + */
> > + rcu_assign_pointer(task->cgroups, to);
> > +
> > + if (task_flags)
> > + psi_task_change(task, now, 0, task_flags);
> > +
> > + task_rq_unlock(rq, task, &rf);
> > +}
>
> Why is that not part of cpu_cgroup_attach() / sched_move_task() ?

Hm, there is some overlap, but it's not the same operation.

cpu_cgroup_attach() handles rq migration between cgroups that have the
cpu controller enabled, but psi needs to migrate task counts around
for memory and IO as well, as we always need to know nr_runnable.

The cpu controller is super expensive, though, and e.g. we had to
disable it for cost purposes while still running psi, so it wouldn't
be great to need full hierarchical per-cgroup scheduling policy just
to know the runnable count in a group.

Likewise, I don't think we'd want to change the cgroup core to call
->attach for *all* cgroups and have the callback figure out whether
the controller is actually enabled on them or not for this one case.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-07-24 17:52    [W:0.151 / U:3.864 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site