mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Pavan Kondeti <pkondeti@codeaurora.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
	Zefan Li <lizefan.x@bytedance.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
	Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>, Wei Wang <wvw@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cgroup: Relax restrictions on kernel threads moving out of root cpu cgroup
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2021 12:15:24 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YGyJHAlLKqng2WeS@slm.duckdns.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210406152715.GB21941@codeaurora.org>

Hello,

On Tue, Apr 06, 2021 at 08:57:15PM +0530, Pavan Kondeti wrote:
> Yeah. The workqueue attrs comes in handy to reduce the nice/prio of a
> background workqueue if we identify that it is cpu intensive. However, this
> needs case by case analysis, tweaking etc. If there is no other alternative,
> we might end up chasing the background workers and reduce their nice value.

There shouldn't be that many workqueues that consume a lot of cpu cycles.
The usual culprit is kswapd, IO related stuff (writeback, encryption), so it
shouldn't be a long list and we want them identified anyway.

> The problem at our hand (which you might be knowing already) is that, lets say
> we have 2 cgroups in our setup and we want to prioritize UX over background.
> IOW, reduce the cpu.shares of background cgroup. This helps in prioritizing
> Task-A and Task-B over Task-X and Task-Y. However, each individual kworker
> can potentially have CPU share equal to the entire UX cgroup.
> 
> -kworker/0:0
> -kworker/1:0
> - UX
> ----Task-A
> ----Task-B
> - background
> ----Task-X
> ----Task-Y
> Hence we want to move all kernel threads to another cgroup so that this cgroup
> will have CPU share equal to UX.
> 
> The patch presented here allows us to create the above setup. Any other
> alternative approaches to achieve the same without impacting any future
> designs/requirements?

Not quite the same but we already have
/sys/devices/virtual/workqueue/cpumask which affects all unbound workqueues,
so maybe a global default priority knob would help here?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun

  reply	other threads:[~2021-04-06 16:15 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-04-06 13:04 Pavankumar Kondeti
2021-04-06 13:36 ` Tejun Heo
2021-04-06 15:27   ` Pavan Kondeti
2021-04-06 16:15     ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2021-04-07  1:38       ` Pavan Kondeti
2021-04-14 22:00         ` Wei Wang
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2021-04-06 10:59 Pavankumar Kondeti
2021-04-06 12:10 ` Quentin Perret
2021-04-06 13:00   ` Pavan Kondeti

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=YGyJHAlLKqng2WeS@slm.duckdns.org \
    --to=tj@kernel.org \
    --cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lizefan.x@bytedance.com \
    --cc=pkondeti@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=qperret@google.com \
    --cc=wvw@google.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

Powered by JetHome