From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BF88B1C3C15 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2025 19:14:41 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1736795681; cv=none; b=F8sPgdYQnLpstu4LXe16/VAnof4LoEjYwbOccBe1bF1cfB1S/NOOM+lYhbcKg7RleZKeMYwXp1zK4x0XvKG+wjaUdU/2Y0eDDME4CU1Yw6j0i2lCyDg83KyuCzPbTSpeBbuMFVnrukFsRIvgu6qND02dZuZ41UJqe2EQ3gn98zg= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1736795681; c=relaxed/simple; bh=ZDz8xhoJDEcV/pEbTojpQdt7SMjp1CBNyqmLnqAfk5k=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=nMwSX9p9mvASUbr/LiAX5UVjUob2Y5T32rQiSJvWkVw+NLS1JfD6zDwiOF/TpHS2TlVvrZiICaHhlWAY1UJUEcimWvYZemqsw5GFnR/X1E7jfW/ih0ARfmmhFwhBEFAUIg4zk6oYg0rFNlrvg9XCEWIGNcYsxOoUjwPWmwj3LNs= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=PSnfPpqB; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="PSnfPpqB" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2D374C4CED6; Mon, 13 Jan 2025 19:14:41 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1736795681; bh=ZDz8xhoJDEcV/pEbTojpQdt7SMjp1CBNyqmLnqAfk5k=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=PSnfPpqBBEN3rEN1A/+yC3d5ItDgnfSuZGeOMifBO4t9J2fCQJutiFXnDn+DwNG5y jQPsP3kXGhKVGKXUPHdLP1BlMqcOeHXoNQJeiUSTjK9Iz7VFoIJfYJOOTXIl6MhoPc 3CMlrK+tLpiBFlgaGaAaRLSpllZp0PzE63p2Q1e7g54Vp3q8UDIPobbLrAspYvf7qo lLdyDKHyb/relZPz1oQW1vgliJvqA6ybbun9Hpp6MnrYUF+YQwBHs+3aFQRoexZGI4 EGsJfxNIwIKBFmDD9x3rjENyyVlbbN25BDOI6vCdy2yVlDQRXEs0xeA78EmHSVn8Cd jATq15a1EAtLA== Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2025 09:14:40 -1000 From: Tejun Heo To: Shakeel Butt Cc: JP Kobryn , mhocko@kernel.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org, yosryahmed@google.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/9 v2] cgroup: separate per-subsystem rstat trees Message-ID: References: <20250103015020.78547-1-inwardvessel@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: cgroups@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Hello, On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 10:39:02AM -0800, Shakeel Butt wrote: ... > Here I think the supportive data we can show is the (1) non-memory stats > readers not needing to spend time on memory stats flushing and (2) with > per-subsystem update tree, have we increased the cost of update tree > insertion in general? > > Anything else you think will be needed? Anything that shows: 1. It doesn't cause noticeable regressions for generic use cases. 2. It has noticeable benefits in the targeted use cases. The above is a bit willy-nilly but 2 should be fairly straightforward. For 1, the main worry would be whether high(er) frequency monitoring using something like systemd-cgtop or below becomes noticeably more expensive on a large and busy system. Thanks. -- tejun