Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <94ddcd31-e168-06ed-c0f9-2ea25b802d60@bytedance.com>
Date:   Thu, 4 Aug 2022 10:02:12 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:102.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.1.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/9] sched/psi: add kernel cmdline parameter
 psi_inner_cgroup
To:     Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc:     Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, surenb@google.com,
        mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, corbet@lwn.net,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, rdunlap@infradead.org,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        songmuchun@bytedance.com, cgroups@vger.kernel.org
References: <20220721040439.2651-1-zhouchengming@bytedance.com>
 <20220721040439.2651-9-zhouchengming@bytedance.com>
 <Yt7KQc0nnOypB2b2@cmpxchg.org> <YuAqWprKd6NsWs7C@slm.duckdns.org>
 <5a3410d6-428d-9ad1-3e5a-01ca805ceeeb@bytedance.com>
 <Yuq3Q6Y9dRnjjcPt@slm.duckdns.org>
Content-Language: en-US
From:   Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@bytedance.com>
In-Reply-To: <Yuq3Q6Y9dRnjjcPt@slm.duckdns.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 2022/8/4 01:58, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Wed, Aug 03, 2022 at 08:17:22PM +0800, Chengming Zhou wrote:
>>> Assuming the above isn't wrong, if we can figure out how we can re-enable
>>> it, which is more difficult as the counters need to be resynchronized with
>>> the current state, that'd be ideal. Then, we can just allow each cgroup to
>>> enable / disable PSI reporting dynamically as they see fit.
>>
>> This method is more fine-grained but more difficult like you said above.
>> I think it may meet most needs to disable PSI stats in intermediate cgroups?
> 
> So, I'm not necessarily against implementing something easier but we at
> least wanna get the interface right, so that if we decide to do the full
> thing later we can easily expand on the existing interface. ie. let's please
> not be too hacky. I don't think it'd be that difficult to implement
> per-cgroup disable-only operation that we can later expand to allow
> re-enabling, right?

Agree, the interface is important, per-cgroup disable-only operation maybe easier
to implement. I will look into this more.

Thanks!