Re: [PATCH v2 20/23] sched: psi: implement bpf_psi struct ops

Tejun Heo
2025-10-28T18:35:25Z

Hello,

On Tue, Oct 28, 2025 at 11:29:31AM -0700, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > Here, too, I wonder whether it's necessary to build a hard-coded
> > infrastructure to hook into PSI's triggers. psi_avgs_work() is what triggers
> > these events and it's not that hot. Wouldn't a fexit attachment to that
> > function that reads the updated values be enough? We can also easily add a
> > TP there if a more structured access is desirable.
>
> Idk, it would require re-implementing parts of the kernel PSI trigger code
> in BPF, without clear benefits.
>
> Handling PSI in BPF might be quite useful outside of the OOM handling,
> e.g. it can be used for scheduling decisions, networking throttling,
> memory tiering, etc. So maybe I'm biased (and I'm obviously am here), but
> I'm not too concerned about adding infrastructure which won't be used.
>
> But I understand your point. I personally feel that the added complexity of
> the infrastructure makes writing and maintaining BPF PSI programs
> simpler, but I'm open to other opinions here.

Yeah, I mean, I'm not necessarily against adding infrastructure if the need
is justified - ie. it enables new things which isn't reasonably feasible
otherwise. However, it's also a good idea to start small, iterate and build
up. It's always easier to add new things than to remove stuff which is
already out there. Wouldn't it make more sense to add the minimum mechanism,
see how things develop and add what's identified as missing in the process?

Thanks.

--
tejun