Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm/sched: memdelay: memory health interface for systems and workloads

[Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>]

On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 11:28:13AM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 11:10:55AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 11:30:10AM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > +static void domain_cpu_update(struct memdelay_domain *md, int cpu,
> > > +			      int old, int new)
> > > +{
> > > +	enum memdelay_domain_state state;
> > > +	struct memdelay_domain_cpu *mdc;
> > > +	unsigned long now, delta;
> > > +	unsigned long flags;
> > > +
> > > +	mdc = per_cpu_ptr(md->mdcs, cpu);
> > > +	spin_lock_irqsave(&mdc->lock, flags);
> > 
> > Afaict this is inside scheduler locks, this cannot be a spinlock. Also,
> > do we really want to add more atomics there?
> 
> I think we should be able to get away without an additional lock and
> rely on the rq lock instead. schedule, enqueue, dequeue already hold
> it, memdelay_enter/leave could be added. I need to think about what to
> do with try_to_wake_up in order to get the cpu move accounting inside
> the locked section of ttwu_queue(), but that should be doable too.

So could you start by describing what actual statistics we need? Because
as is the scheduler already does a gazillion stats and why can't re
repurpose some of those?

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>