Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <60decdb6.1c69fb81.6130e.7642@mx.google.com> <YN+Sne76dhKBzV/R@mtj.duckdns.org>
In-Reply-To: <YN+Sne76dhKBzV/R@mtj.duckdns.org>
From:   Hao Lee <haolee.swjtu@gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 4 Jul 2021 00:20:19 +0800
Message-ID: <CA+PpKPkau-b0df5i4kpJ_RTXW1Fje4Ms0T2hGJCOE31u+BU7zg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Question] Do we need remote charging for cpu and cpuacct subsys?
To:     Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc:     linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Jul 3, 2021 at 6:26 AM Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> On Fri, Jul 02, 2021 at 08:26:27AM -0000, Hao Lee wrote:
> > memcg currently has a remote charging mechanism that can charge usage to other
> > memcg instead of the one the task belongs to.
> >
> > In our environment, we need to account the cpu usage consumed by some kworkers
> > to a specific cgroup. Thus, we want to introduce a remote-charging mechanism to
> > cpu and cpuacct subsys in our kernel.
> >
> > I want to know if the community has a plan to do this?
> > What will the community approach look like?
>
> Yeah, we need sth like this to account for cpu cycles spent in commont path
> but caused by specific cgroups - e.g. memory reclaim, net packet rx and so
> on. There were some mentions of needing somthing like that but haven't been
> any patchsets or concrete efforts that I know of.

Thanks for this reply. I am interested in this area because this feature
would be very useful in our containerized environment. I will track related
discussions and want to do some work related to remote charging.

>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> tejun