Re: [PATCH v2 09/10] sched/psi: per-cgroup PSI stats disable/re-enable interface

[Chengming Zhou]

On 2022/8/23 23:35, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 02:18:21PM +0800, Chengming Zhou wrote:
>> 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?
> 
> Re 1: I agree. If desired in the future we can make the default
> configurable. Kconfig, mount option, what have you. cgroup.pressure
> will work fine as a name regardless of what the default is.
> 
> Re 2: Not all consumers of the pressure metrics create trigger. I
> would argue that few do. So it isn't the best signal to decide on
> whether aggregation should occur. And yes, it's further complicated by
> the triggers being written to the very pressure files. If we don't
> hide them, we have to come up with another way to mark them as stale,
> lest they confuse the heck out of users. Without breaking format...
> 
> So IMO, default-enable, "cgroup.pressure" as a name, and hiding the
> pressure files should be good for now while allowing to make the
> default configurable down the line.

Agree, it's what we want for now. Thanks for your reply!