From: Zhaoyang Huang <huangzhaoyang@gmail.com>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>,
Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>,
Todd Kjos <tkjos@android.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
"zhaoyang.huang" <zhaoyang.huang@unisoc.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, steve.kang@unisoc.com,
Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] driver: loop: introduce synchronized read for loop driver
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2025 17:13:24 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAGWkznGv3jwTLW2nkBds9NrUeNQ1GHK=2kijDotH=DN762PyEQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <31091c95-1d0c-4e5a-a53b-929529bf0996@acm.org>
loop google kernel team. When active_depth of the cgroupv2 is set to
3, the loop device's request I2C will be affected by schedule latency
which is introduced by huge numbers of kworker thread corresponding to
blkcg for each. What's your opinion on this RFC patch?
On Wed, Sep 24, 2025 at 12:30 AM Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org> wrote:
>
> On 9/22/25 8:50 PM, Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
> > Yes, we have tried to solve this case from the above perspective. As
> > to the scheduler, packing small tasks to one core(Big core in ARM)
> > instead of spreading them is desired for power-saving reasons. To the
> > number of kworker threads, it is upon current design which will create
> > new work for each blkcg. According to ANDROID's current approach, each
> > PID takes one cgroup and correspondingly a kworker thread which
> > actually induces this scenario.
>
> More cgroups means more overhead from cgroup-internal tasks, e.g.
> accumulating statistics. How about requesting to the Android core team
> to review the approach of associating one cgroup with each PID? I'm
> wondering whether the approach of one cgroup per aggregate profile
> (SCHED_SP_BACKGROUND, SCHED_SP_FOREGROUND, ...) would work.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bart.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-09-24 9:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-09-22 3:29 zhaoyang.huang
2025-09-22 18:09 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-09-23 3:50 ` Zhaoyang Huang
2025-09-23 16:30 ` Bart Van Assche
2025-09-24 9:13 ` Zhaoyang Huang [this message]
2025-09-24 10:04 ` Ming Lei
2025-09-25 1:14 ` Zhaoyang Huang
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='CAGWkznGv3jwTLW2nkBds9NrUeNQ1GHK=2kijDotH=DN762PyEQ@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=huangzhaoyang@gmail.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=bvanassche@acm.org \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=minchan@kernel.org \
--cc=ming.lei@redhat.com \
--cc=steve.kang@unisoc.com \
--cc=surenb@google.com \
--cc=tkjos@android.com \
--cc=zhaoyang.huang@unisoc.com \
/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: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox