On 2022/8/4 01:58, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > On Wed, Aug 03, 2022 at 08:17:22PM +0800, Chengming Zhou wrote: >>> Assuming the above isn't wrong, if we can figure out how we can re-enable >>> it, which is more difficult as the counters need to be resynchronized with >>> the current state, that'd be ideal. Then, we can just allow each cgroup to >>> enable / disable PSI reporting dynamically as they see fit. >> >> This method is more fine-grained but more difficult like you said above. >> I think it may meet most needs to disable PSI stats in intermediate cgroups? > > So, I'm not necessarily against implementing something easier but we at > least wanna get the interface right, so that if we decide to do the full > thing later we can easily expand on the existing interface. ie. let's please > not be too hacky. I don't think it'd be that difficult to implement > per-cgroup disable-only operation that we can later expand to allow > re-enabling, right? Agree, the interface is important, per-cgroup disable-only operation maybe easier to implement. I will look into this more. Thanks!
