On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 03:31:00AM +0000, CGEL wrote: > On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 08:11:16PM -0700, Roman Gushchin wrote: > > On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 07:47:29PM -0700, Shakeel Butt wrote: > > > On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 7:19 PM CGEL <cgel.zte@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All controls in cgroup v2 should be hierarchical. This is really > > > > > > > required for a proper delegation semantic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could we align to the semantic of /sys/fs/cgroup/memory.swappiness? > > > > > > Some distributions like Ubuntu is still using cgroup v1. > > > > > > > > > > Other than enable flag, how would you handle the defrag flag > > > > > hierarchically? It is much more complicated. > > > > > > > > Refer to memory.swappiness for cgroup, this new interface better be independent. > > > > > > Let me give my 0.02. I buy the use-case of Admin restricting THPs to > > > low priority jobs but I don't think memory controller is the right > > > place to enforce that policy. Michal gave one way (prctl()) to enforce > > > that policy. Have you explored the BPF way to enforce this policy? > > > > +1 for bpf > > > > I think these THP hints are too implementation-dependent and unstable to become > > a part of cgroup API. > > > > Thanks! If no other suggesting we will submit a bpf version of this patch. > What is your proposal for BPF? How do you intend to add attach points (attach_type) for policy? Is it still going to be per cgroup? Balbir Singh
