On 10.11.21 18:14, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 07:36:37AM -0800, Georgi Djakov wrote:

quoted

@@ -21,7 +19,18 @@ enum psi_task_count {
  	 * don't have to special case any state tracking for it.
  	 */
  	NR_ONCPU,
-	NR_PSI_TASK_COUNTS = 4,
+	NR_BLK_CGROUP_THROTTLE,
+	NR_BIO,
+	NR_COMPACTION,
+	NR_THRASHING,
+	NR_CGROUP_RECLAIM_HIGH,
+	NR_CGROUP_RECLAIM_HIGH_SLEEP,
+	NR_CGROUP_TRY_CHARGE,
+	NR_DIRECT_COMPACTION,
+	NR_DIRECT_RECLAIM,
+	NR_READ_SWAPPAGE,
+	NR_KSWAPD,
+	NR_PSI_TASK_COUNTS = 16,
  };
  

quoted

@@ -51,9 +80,20 @@ enum psi_states {
  	PSI_MEM_FULL,
  	PSI_CPU_SOME,
  	PSI_CPU_FULL,
+	PSI_BLK_CGROUP_THROTTLE,
+	PSI_BIO,
+	PSI_COMPACTION,
+	PSI_THRASHING,
+	PSI_CGROUP_RECLAIM_HIGH,
+	PSI_CGROUP_RECLAIM_HIGH_SLEEP,
+	PSI_CGROUP_TRY_CHARGE,
+	PSI_DIRECT_COMPACTION,
+	PSI_DIRECT_RECLAIM,
+	PSI_READ_SWAPPAGE,
+	PSI_KSWAPD,
  	/* Only per-CPU, to weigh the CPU in the global average: */
  	PSI_NONIDLE,
-	NR_PSI_STATES = 7,
+	NR_PSI_STATES = 18,
  };

Have you considered what this does to psi_group_cpu's size and layout
and the impact thereof on performance?

Thanks, i will definitely add some numbers in case there are no other
major arguments against this RFC patch.

BR,
Georgi