Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S932450AbdCUPSX (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Tue, 21 Mar 2017 11:18:23 -0400
Received: from mga04.intel.com ([192.55.52.120]:60893 "EHLO mga04.intel.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1757522AbdCUPST (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 21 Mar 2017 11:18:19 -0400
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.36,198,1486454400"; 
   d="scan'208";a="78987226"
Message-ID: <1490109496.17719.15.camel@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] mm: support parallel free of memory
From: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@intel.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Ying Huang <ying.huang@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 11:18:16 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20170316090732.GF30501@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <1489568404-7817-1-git-send-email-aaron.lu@intel.com>
         <20170315141813.GB32626@dhcp22.suse.cz>
         <20170315154406.GF2442@aaronlu.sh.intel.com>
         <20170315162843.GA27197@dhcp22.suse.cz>
         <1489613914.2733.96.camel@linux.intel.com>
         <20170316090732.GF30501@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.18.5.2 (3.18.5.2-1.fc23) 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1037
Lines: 21

On Thu, 2017-03-16 at 10:07 +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> 
> > > the main problem is that kworkers will not belong to the same cpu group
> > > and so they will not be throttled properly.
> > You do have a point that this page freeing activities should strive to
> > affect other threads not in the same cgroup minimally.
> > 
> > On the other hand, we also don't do this throttling of kworkers 
> > today (e.g. pdflush) according to the cgroup it is doing work for.
> Yes, I am not saying this a new problem. I just wanted to point out that
> this is something to consider here. I believe this should be fixable.
> Worker can attach to the same cgroup the initiator had for example
> (assuming the cgroup core allows that which is something would have to
> be checked).

Instead of attaching the kworders to the cgroup of the initiator, I
wonder what people think about creating a separate kworker cgroup. 
The administrator can set limit on its cpu resource bandwidth
if he/she does not want such kworkers perturbing the system.

Tim