Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.32 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.32;
Message-ID: <a93f13de-a018-2ee4-c7a0-855c3bd04444@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 9 Oct 2023 18:29:15 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:102.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.14.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] delayacct: convert task->delays to a object
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     bsingharora@gmail.com, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
        vincent.guittot@linaro.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <cover.1696761522.git.chunguang.xu@shopee.com>
 <531ddc82793a39f4c09316d701a4b1170bcad4ab.1696761522.git.chunguang.xu@shopee.com>
 <20231008105801.GC6320@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <5dba07eb-88f0-bf84-494e-b979f32ad44d@gmail.com>
 <20231009084341.GA14330@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
From:   brookxu <brookxu.cn@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20231009084341.GA14330@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk


在 2023/10/9 16:43, Peter Zijlstra 写道:
> On Sun, Oct 08, 2023 at 07:10:01PM +0800, brookxu wrote:
>
>>>> @@ -1331,7 +1332,7 @@ struct task_struct {
>>>>    	struct page_frag		task_frag;
>>>>    #ifdef CONFIG_TASK_DELAY_ACCT
>>>> -	struct task_delay_info		*delays;
>>>> +	struct task_delay_info		delays;
>>>>    #endif
>>> Yeah, no.
>> Yes, this way will increase about 80 bytes for task_struct, about 0.85% of
>> size of task_struct, I think this just like sched_statistics, so that can
>> better support dynamically enable through sysctl.
> But it's 80 bytes 'nobody' will use. And arguably we should do the same
> with schedstats, that's default disabled and again, that's per-task
> storage nobody ever uses.
>
> Per this argument we can grow task_struct indefinitely until it
> collapses in on itself by the sheer weight of it's information density.
> Every additional field will be a smaller fraction of the total.
>
> Yes, it makes it all a little more cumbersome, but we should really not
> burden everybody with the load of some.
>
> Surely there is another solution... ?
Thanks, agree with you, I try do it in other ways :)