Re: [Lhms-devel] [PATCH 0/7] Fragmentation Avoidance V19

[Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com>]

Andrew wrote:
> >  So I will leave that challenge on the table for someone else.
> 
> And I won't merge your patch ;)

Be that way ;).


> Seriously, it does appear that doing it per-task is adequate for your
> needs, and it is certainly more general.

My motivations for the per-cpuset, digitally filtered rate, as opposed
to the per-task raw counter mostly have to do with minimizing total
cost (user + kernel) of collecting this information.  I have this phobia,
perhaps not well founded, that moving critical scheduling/allocation
decisions like this into user space will fail in some cases because
the cost of gathering the critical information will be too intrusive
on system performance and scalability.

A per-task stat requires walking the tasklist, to build a list of the
tasks to query.

A raw counter requires repeated polling to determine the recent rate of
activity.

The filtered per-cpuset rate avoids any need to repeatedly access
global resources such as the tasklist, and minimizes the total cpu
cycles required to get the interesting stat.


> But I have to care for all users.

Well you should, and well you do.

If you have good reason, or just good instincts, to think that there
are uses for per-task raw counters, then your choice is clear.

As indeed it was clear.

I don't recall hearing of any desire for per-task memory pressure data,
until tonight.

I will miss this patch.  It had provided exactly what I thought was
needed, with an extremely small impact on system (kern+user) performance.

Oh well.

-- 
                  I won't rest till it's the best ...
                  Programmer, Linux Scalability
                  Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> 1.925.600.0401