From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] numa: introduce per-cgroup numa balancing locality, statistic Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 15:47:54 +0200 Message-ID: <20190711134754.GD3402@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <209d247e-c1b2-3235-2722-dd7c1f896483@linux.alibaba.com> <60b59306-5e36-e587-9145-e90657daec41@linux.alibaba.com> <3ac9b43a-cc80-01be-0079-df008a71ce4b@linux.alibaba.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=merlin.20170209; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date: Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help: List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=B8VPRtxAaRavzdJXhPNGPP7MJxy27D2BMEVGhwTkA7Q=; b=c8TzrwqUlt9qDq7vFPYtRVBn3H DJX6fm8LSxp8r//78fWYTug6IOIH6geBZYWoJ4TYpizO7Auf6N1pg/+wvb4w6DAM26YzLByT0MSgp evUPeJbSWAr5lJfEkWgcdX5J6Bhvf07xqbmj4/m9aTNZPLqXkp1S/1U+lAW3vBOvW0lDdC0zCdz/v Lye8AT85BM2UXm31VdG3JBET4bqv6lc4kHnFgc3kqhq/OYyHtZiHN8dYc9gaJEqZToVuPqSSgsdnT o6zqNnzdwABf4sX+eyYJckTDkvRP0lDq06+zAaJg0KxKy/92maynHWSddc2vAVyq71sQHEn1aeW9y Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3ac9b43a-cc80-01be-0079-df008a71ce4b@linux.alibaba.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" To: =?utf-8?B?546L6LSH?= Cc: hannes@cmpxchg.org, mhocko@kernel.org, vdavydov.dev@gmail.com, Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, mcgrof@kernel.org, keescook@chromium.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, Mel Gorman , riel@surriel.com On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 11:28:10AM +0800, 王贇 wrote: > @@ -3562,10 +3563,53 @@ static int memcg_numa_stat_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v) > seq_putc(m, '\n'); > } > > +#ifdef CONFIG_NUMA_BALANCING > + seq_puts(m, "locality"); > + for (nr = 0; nr < NR_NL_INTERVAL; nr++) { > + int cpu; > + u64 sum = 0; > + > + for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) > + sum += per_cpu(memcg->stat_numa->locality[nr], cpu); > + > + seq_printf(m, " %u", jiffies_to_msecs(sum)); > + } > + seq_putc(m, '\n'); > +#endif > + > return 0; > } > #endif /* CONFIG_NUMA */ > > +#ifdef CONFIG_NUMA_BALANCING > + > +void memcg_stat_numa_update(struct task_struct *p) > +{ > + struct mem_cgroup *memcg; > + unsigned long remote = p->numa_faults_locality[3]; > + unsigned long local = p->numa_faults_locality[4]; > + unsigned long idx = -1; > + > + if (mem_cgroup_disabled()) > + return; > + > + if (remote || local) { > + idx = ((local * 10) / (remote + local)) - 2; > + /* 0~29% in one slot for cache align */ > + if (idx < PERCENT_0_29) > + idx = PERCENT_0_29; > + else if (idx >= NR_NL_INTERVAL) > + idx = NR_NL_INTERVAL - 1; > + } > + > + rcu_read_lock(); > + memcg = mem_cgroup_from_task(p); > + if (idx != -1) > + this_cpu_inc(memcg->stat_numa->locality[idx]); I thought cgroups were supposed to be hierarchical. That is, if we have: R / \ A /\ B \ t1 Then our task t1 should be accounted to B (as you do), but also to A and R. > + rcu_read_unlock(); > +} > +#endif