Hi Michal, Thx for the comments :-) On 2019/7/15 下午8:10, Michal Koutný wrote: > Hello Yun. > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 06:10:24PM +0800, 王贇 <yun.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Forgive me but I have no idea on how to combined this >> with memory cgroup's locality hierarchical update... >> parent memory cgroup do not have influence on mems_allowed >> to it's children, correct? > I'd recommend to look at the v2 of the cpuset controller that implements > the hierarchical behavior among configured memory node sets. Actually whatever the memory node sets or cpu allow sets is, it will take effect on task's behavior regarding memory location and cpu location, while the locality only care about the results rather than the sets. For example if we bind tasks to cpus of node 0 and memory allow only the node 1, by cgroup controller or madvise, then they will running on node 0 with all the memory on node 1, on each PF for numa balancing, the task will access page on node 1 from node 0 remotely, so the locality will always be 0. > > (My comment would better fit to > [PATCH 3/4] numa: introduce numa group per task group > IIUC, you could use cpuset controller to constraint memory nodes.) > > For the second part (accessing numa statistics, i.e. this patch), I > wonder wheter this information wouldn't be better presented under the > cpuset controller too. Yeah, we realized the cpu cgroup could be a better place to hold these new statistics, both locality and exectime are task's running behavior, related to memory location but not the memory behavior, will apply in next version. Regards, Michael Wang > > HTH, > Michal >
