Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Fri, 12 Jul 2019 09:58:15 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     =?utf-8?B?546L6LSH?= <yun.wang@linux.alibaba.com>
Cc:     hannes@cmpxchg.org, mhocko@kernel.org, vdavydov.dev@gmail.com,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, mcgrof@kernel.org, keescook@chromium.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>, riel@surriel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] numa: introduce per-cgroup numa balancing locality,
 statistic
Message-ID: <20190712075815.GN3402@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <209d247e-c1b2-3235-2722-dd7c1f896483@linux.alibaba.com>
 <60b59306-5e36-e587-9145-e90657daec41@linux.alibaba.com>
 <3ac9b43a-cc80-01be-0079-df008a71ce4b@linux.alibaba.com>
 <20190711134754.GD3402@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <b027f9cc-edd2-840c-3829-176a1e298446@linux.alibaba.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <b027f9cc-edd2-840c-3829-176a1e298446@linux.alibaba.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

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.