On Thu, 2017-03-16 at 10:07 +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > the main problem is that kworkers will not belong to the same cpu group > > > and so they will not be throttled properly. > > You do have a point that this page freeing activities should strive to > > affect other threads not in the same cgroup minimally. > > > > On the other hand, we also don't do this throttling of kworkers > > today (e.g. pdflush) according to the cgroup it is doing work for. > Yes, I am not saying this a new problem. I just wanted to point out that > this is something to consider here. I believe this should be fixable. > Worker can attach to the same cgroup the initiator had for example > (assuming the cgroup core allows that which is something would have to > be checked). Instead of attaching the kworders to the cgroup of the initiator, I wonder what people think about creating a separate kworker cgroup. The administrator can set limit on its cpu resource bandwidth if he/she does not want such kworkers perturbing the system. Tim -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
