From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> To: CGEL <cgel.zte@gmail.com> Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org, willy@infradead.org, shy828301@gmail.com, roman.gushchin@linux.dev, shakeelb@google.com, linmiaohe@huawei.com, william.kucharski@oracle.com, peterx@redhat.com, hughd@google.com, vbabka@suse.cz, songmuchun@bytedance.com, surenb@google.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, Yang Yang <yang.yang29@zte.com.cn> Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/memcg: support control THP behaviour in cgroup Date: Mon, 9 May 2022 12:00:28 +0200 [thread overview] Message-ID: <YnjmPAToTR0C5o8x@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw) In-Reply-To: <6275d3e7.1c69fb81.1d62.4504@mx.google.com> On Sat 07-05-22 02:05:25, CGEL wrote: [...] > If there are many containers to run on one host, and some of them have high > performance requirements, administrator could turn on thp for them: > # docker run -it --thp-enabled=always > Then all the processes in those containers will always use thp. > While other containers turn off thp by: > # docker run -it --thp-enabled=never I do not know. The THP config space is already too confusing and complex and this just adds on top. E.g. is the behavior of the knob hierarchical? What is the policy if parent memcg says madivise while child says always? How does the per-application configuration aligns with all that (e.g. memcg policy madivise but application says never via prctl while still uses some madvised - e.g. via library). > By doing this we could promote important containers's performance with less > footprint of thp. Do we really want to provide something like THP based QoS? To me it sounds like a bad idea and if the justification is "it might be useful" then I would say no. So you really need to come with a very good usecase to promote this further. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko-IBi9RG/b67k@public.gmane.org> To: CGEL <cgel.zte-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> Cc: akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org, hannes-druUgvl0LCNAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org, willy-wEGCiKHe2LqWVfeAwA7xHQ@public.gmane.org, shy828301-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, roman.gushchin-fxUVXftIFDnyG1zEObXtfA@public.gmane.org, shakeelb-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, linmiaohe-hv44wF8Li93QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, william.kucharski-QHcLZuEGTsvQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, peterx-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, hughd-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, vbabka-AlSwsSmVLrQ@public.gmane.org, songmuchun-EC8Uxl6Npydl57MIdRCFDg@public.gmane.org, surenb-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org, cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Yang Yang <yang.yang29-Th6q7B73Y6EnDS1+zs4M5A@public.gmane.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/memcg: support control THP behaviour in cgroup Date: Mon, 9 May 2022 12:00:28 +0200 [thread overview] Message-ID: <YnjmPAToTR0C5o8x@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw) In-Reply-To: <6275d3e7.1c69fb81.1d62.4504-ATjtLOhZ0NVl57MIdRCFDg@public.gmane.org> On Sat 07-05-22 02:05:25, CGEL wrote: [...] > If there are many containers to run on one host, and some of them have high > performance requirements, administrator could turn on thp for them: > # docker run -it --thp-enabled=always > Then all the processes in those containers will always use thp. > While other containers turn off thp by: > # docker run -it --thp-enabled=never I do not know. The THP config space is already too confusing and complex and this just adds on top. E.g. is the behavior of the knob hierarchical? What is the policy if parent memcg says madivise while child says always? How does the per-application configuration aligns with all that (e.g. memcg policy madivise but application says never via prctl while still uses some madvised - e.g. via library). > By doing this we could promote important containers's performance with less > footprint of thp. Do we really want to provide something like THP based QoS? To me it sounds like a bad idea and if the justification is "it might be useful" then I would say no. So you really need to come with a very good usecase to promote this further. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-05-09 10:17 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 47+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2022-05-05 3:38 [PATCH] mm/memcg: support control THP behaviour in cgroup cgel.zte 2022-05-05 3:38 ` cgel.zte-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w 2022-05-05 12:49 ` kernel test robot 2022-05-05 12:49 ` kernel test robot 2022-05-05 13:31 ` kernel test robot 2022-05-05 13:31 ` kernel test robot 2022-05-05 16:09 ` kernel test robot 2022-05-05 16:09 ` kernel test robot 2022-05-06 13:41 ` Michal Hocko 2022-05-06 13:41 ` Michal Hocko 2022-05-07 2:05 ` CGEL 2022-05-07 2:05 ` CGEL 2022-05-09 10:00 ` Michal Hocko [this message] 2022-05-09 10:00 ` Michal Hocko 2022-05-09 11:26 ` CGEL 2022-05-09 11:26 ` CGEL 2022-05-09 11:48 ` Michal Hocko 2022-05-09 11:48 ` Michal Hocko 2022-05-10 1:43 ` CGEL 2022-05-10 1:43 ` CGEL 2022-05-10 10:00 ` Michal Hocko 2022-05-10 10:00 ` Michal Hocko 2022-05-10 11:52 ` CGEL 2022-05-10 11:52 ` CGEL 2022-05-10 13:36 ` Michal Hocko 2022-05-10 13:36 ` Michal Hocko 2022-05-11 1:59 ` CGEL 2022-05-11 1:59 ` CGEL 2022-05-11 7:21 ` Michal Hocko 2022-05-11 7:21 ` Michal Hocko 2022-05-11 9:47 ` CGEL 2022-05-18 5:58 ` CGEL 2022-05-18 5:58 ` CGEL 2022-05-10 19:34 ` Yang Shi 2022-05-10 19:34 ` Yang Shi 2022-05-11 2:19 ` CGEL 2022-05-11 2:19 ` CGEL 2022-05-11 2:47 ` Shakeel Butt 2022-05-11 2:47 ` Shakeel Butt 2022-05-11 3:11 ` Roman Gushchin 2022-05-11 3:11 ` Roman Gushchin 2022-05-11 3:31 ` CGEL 2022-05-11 3:31 ` CGEL 2022-05-18 8:14 ` Balbir Singh 2022-05-18 8:14 ` Balbir Singh 2022-05-11 3:17 ` CGEL 2022-05-11 3:17 ` CGEL
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=YnjmPAToTR0C5o8x@dhcp22.suse.cz \ --to=mhocko@suse.com \ --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \ --cc=cgel.zte@gmail.com \ --cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \ --cc=hughd@google.com \ --cc=linmiaohe@huawei.com \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \ --cc=peterx@redhat.com \ --cc=roman.gushchin@linux.dev \ --cc=shakeelb@google.com \ --cc=shy828301@gmail.com \ --cc=songmuchun@bytedance.com \ --cc=surenb@google.com \ --cc=vbabka@suse.cz \ --cc=william.kucharski@oracle.com \ --cc=willy@infradead.org \ --cc=yang.yang29@zte.com.cn \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.