Date:   Fri, 24 Feb 2023 13:47:35 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To:     Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
Cc:     Sudarshan Rajagopalan <quic_sudaraja@quicinc.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>,
        Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>,
        Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>,
        mark.rutland@arm.com, will@kernel.org,
        virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
        Trilok Soni <quic_tsoni@quicinc.com>,
        Sukadev Bhattiprolu <quic_sukadev@quicinc.com>,
        Srivatsa Vaddagiri <quic_svaddagi@quicinc.com>,
        Patrick Daly <quic_pdaly@quicinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] psi: reduce min window size to 50ms
Message-ID: <Y/ix53x8i/ViuBXf@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <cover.1676067791.git.quic_sudaraja@quicinc.com>
 <CAJuCfpHWQ8NV=iR3BN+pt1c8FynCnRqyyriHb1gLxFgiNVrwjA@mail.gmail.com>
 <e944536f-a04c-5528-601e-d7f505a761e8@quicinc.com>
 <CAJuCfpGLkkS2yx0d9+2nYtEtxANSH5H3EgCmWZax4N-ieEBG7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <15cd8816-b474-0535-d854-41982d3bbe5c@quicinc.com>
 <CAJuCfpHihLgHCcsAqMJ_o2u7Ux9B5HFGsV2y_L2_5GXYAGYLnw@mail.gmail.com>
 <82406da2-799e-f0b4-bce0-7d47486030d4@quicinc.com>
 <CAJuCfpHrhO7_fMwNuu2hdQob=MPjZTW8eaJpNhEhPmDMqz2qTA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAJuCfpHrhO7_fMwNuu2hdQob=MPjZTW8eaJpNhEhPmDMqz2qTA@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue 14-02-23 11:34:30, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
[...]
> Your suggestion to have this limit configurable sounds like obvious
> solution. I would like to get some opinions from other maintainers.
> Johannes, WDYT? CC'ing Michal to chime in as well since this is mostly
> related to memory stalls.

I do not think that making this configurable helps much. Many users will
be bound to distribution config and also it would be hard to experiment
with a recompile cycle every time. This seems just too impractical.

Is there any reason why we shouldn't allow any timeout? Shorter
timeouts could be restricted to a priviledged context to avoid an easy
way to swamp system by too frequent polling.

Btw. it seems that there is is only a limit on a single trigger per fd
but no limits per user so it doesn't sound too hard to end up with too
much polling even with a larger timeouts. To me it seems like we need to
contain the polling thread to be bound by the cpu controller.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs