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;
Date:   Mon, 30 Aug 2021 15:49:19 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To:     yong w <yongw.pur@gmail.com>
Cc:     Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>,
        Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>, alexs@kernel.org,
        Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@gmail.com>, Hui Su <sh_def@163.com>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
        wang.yong12@zte.com.cn, Cgroups <cgroups@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>, yang.yang29@zte.com.cn
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm: Add configuration to control whether vmpressure
 notifier is enabled
Message-ID: <YSzh31BasoxUQXAu@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <1629417219-74853-1-git-send-email-wang.yong12@zte.com.cn>
 <YR+Rc9HC6OqlEq4I@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <CAOH5QeCfwF0hX3XpoThEtwnddtOFEU9Jtp0Hoj+Q37D4Q6HC0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <YR/NRJEhPKRQ1r22@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <CAOH5QeDUUqrMnuws6cnBDU_oub4cK6KsHeX39p7Eikr4Bcjcnw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAOH5QeDUUqrMnuws6cnBDU_oub4cK6KsHeX39p7Eikr4Bcjcnw@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Sun 22-08-21 17:46:08, yong w wrote:
> > All those reasons should be a part of the changelog.
> >....
> > I am not sure these are sufficient justifications but that is something
> > to discuss. And hence it should be a part of the changelog.
> >
> OK, These reasons will be added to the patch notesin later versions.
> 
> > > 3. In the case where the user does not need vmpressure,  vmpressure
> > > calculation is additional overhead.
> >
> > You should quantify that and argue why that overhead cannot be further
> > reduced without config/boot time knobs.
> >
> The test results of the previously used PFT tool may not be obvious.
> Is there a better way to quantify it?

This is a question for you to answer I am afraid. You want to add a
configuration option and (as explained) that is not free of cost from
the maintenance POV. There must a very good reason to do that.

> > > In some special scenes with tight memory, vmpressure will be executed
> > > frequently.we use "likely" and "inline"
> > > to improve the performance of the kernel, why not reduce some
> > > unnecessary calculations?
> >
> > I am all for improving the code. Is it possible to do it by other means?
> > E.g. reduce a potential overhead when there no events registered?
> Yes, the method you mentioned may be feasible, but it does not conflict
> with this patch.

It is not in conflict but runtime overhead reduction without more burden
on the configurability is usually a preferred approach.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs