[lkml]   [2019]   [Jan]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] mm: Consider subtrees in
On Mon 28-01-19 09:49:05, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Michal.
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 06:05:26PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > Yeah, that is quite clear. But it also assumes that the hierarchy is
> > pretty stable but cgroups might go away at any time. I am not saying
> > that the aggregated events are not useful I am just saying that it is
> > quite non-trivial to use and catch all potential corner cases. Maybe I
> It really isn't complicated and doesn't require stable subtree.
> > am overcomplicating it but one thing is quite clear to me. The existing
> > semantic is really useful to watch for the reclaim behavior at the
> > current level of the tree. You really do not have to care what is
> > happening in the subtree when it is clear that the workload itself
> > is underprovisioned etc. Considering that such a semantic already
> > existis, somebody might depend on it and we likely want also aggregated
> > semantic then I really do not see why to risk regressions rather than
> > add a new memory.hierarchy_events and have both.
> The problem then is that most other things are hierarchical including
> some fields in .events files, so if we try to add local stats and
> events, there's no good way to add them.

All memcg events are represented non-hierarchical AFAICS
memcg_memory_event() simply accounts at the level when it happens. Or do
I miss something? Or are you talking about .events files for other
Michal Hocko

 \ /
  Last update: 2019-01-29 15:44    [W:0.066 / U:5.952 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site