On 2022/8/15 21:23, Michal Koutný wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 11:25:07AM -0400, Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> cgroup.pressure.enable sounds good to me too. Or, because it's
>> default-enabled and that likely won't change, cgroup.pressure.disable.
>
> Will it not change?
>
> I'd say that user would be interested in particular level or even just
> level in subtree for PSI, so the opt-out may result in lots of explicit
> disablements (or even watch for cgroups created and disable PSI there)
> to get some performance back.
>
> I have two suggestions based on the above:
> 1) Make the default globally configurable (mount option?)
> 2) Allow implicit enablement upon trigger creation
>
I think suggestion 1) make sense in some use case, like make per-cgroup
PSI disabled by default using a mount option, then enable using the
"cgroup.pressure" interface.
But suggestion 2) auto enable upon trigger creation, if we hide the
{cpu,memory,io}.pressure files when disabled, how can we create trigger?
Want to see what do Johannes and Tejun think about these suggestions?
Thanks.
