On 10.11.21 18:14, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 07:36:37AM -0800, Georgi Djakov wrote:@@ -21,7 +19,18 @@ enum psi_task_count { * don't have to special case any state tracking for it. */ NR_ONCPU, - NR_PSI_TASK_COUNTS = 4, + NR_BLK_CGROUP_THROTTLE, + NR_BIO, + NR_COMPACTION, + NR_THRASHING, + NR_CGROUP_RECLAIM_HIGH, + NR_CGROUP_RECLAIM_HIGH_SLEEP, + NR_CGROUP_TRY_CHARGE, + NR_DIRECT_COMPACTION, + NR_DIRECT_RECLAIM, + NR_READ_SWAPPAGE, + NR_KSWAPD, + NR_PSI_TASK_COUNTS = 16, };@@ -51,9 +80,20 @@ enum psi_states { PSI_MEM_FULL, PSI_CPU_SOME, PSI_CPU_FULL, + PSI_BLK_CGROUP_THROTTLE, + PSI_BIO, + PSI_COMPACTION, + PSI_THRASHING, + PSI_CGROUP_RECLAIM_HIGH, + PSI_CGROUP_RECLAIM_HIGH_SLEEP, + PSI_CGROUP_TRY_CHARGE, + PSI_DIRECT_COMPACTION, + PSI_DIRECT_RECLAIM, + PSI_READ_SWAPPAGE, + PSI_KSWAPD, /* Only per-CPU, to weigh the CPU in the global average: */ PSI_NONIDLE, - NR_PSI_STATES = 7, + NR_PSI_STATES = 18, };Have you considered what this does to psi_group_cpu's size and layout and the impact thereof on performance?
Thanks, i will definitely add some numbers in case there are no other major arguments against this RFC patch. BR, Georgi
