Hello, On Thu, Jan 02, 2025 at 05:50:11PM -0800, JP Kobryn wrote: ... > I reached a point where this started to feel stable in my local testing, so I > wanted to share and get feedback on this approach. The rationale for using one tree to track all subsystems was that if one subsys has been active (e.g. memory), it's likely that other subsyses have been active too (e.g. cpu) and thus we might as well flush the whole thing together. The approach can be useful for reducing the amount of work done when e.g. there are a lot of cgroups which are only active periodically but has drawbacks when one subsystem's stats are read a lot more actively than others as you pointed out. Intuitions go only so far and it's difficult to judge whether splitting the trees would be a good idea without data. Can you please provide some numbers along with rationales for the test setups? Thanks. -- tejun
