lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Jul]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH RESEND 3/3 cgroup/for-5.20] cgroup: Make !percpu threadgroup_rwsem operations optional
Hi Tejun,

On 07/26, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> > __rcu_sync_enter(rsp, false) works just like rcu_sync_enter_start() but it can
> > be safely called at any moment.
>
> Yeah, I originally used rcu_sync_enter_start() but quickly found out that it
> can't be reverted reliably. Given how cold the option switching path is, I
> think it's fine to pay an extra synchronize_rcu() there rather than adding
> more complexity to rcu_sync_enter() unless this will be useful somewhere
> else too.

Yes, agreed. As I said, this is just for record, so that I can find this (simple)
patch on lkml if we have another user of __rcu_sync_enter(rsp, bool wait).

> > And can't resist, off-topic question... Say, cgroup_attach_task_all() does
> >
> > mutex_lock(&cgroup_mutex);
> > percpu_down_write(&cgroup_threadgroup_rwsem);
> >
> > and this means that synchronize_rcu() can be called with cgroup_mutex held.
> > Perhaps it makes sense to change this code to do
> >
> > rcu_sync_enter(&cgroup_threadgroup_rwsem.rss);
> > mutex_lock(&cgroup_mutex);
> > percpu_down_write(&cgroup_threadgroup_rwsem);
> > ...
> > percpu_up_write(&cgroup_threadgroup_rwsem);
> > mutex_unlock(&cgroup_mutex);
> > rcu_sync_exit(&cgroup_threadgroup_rwsem.rss);
> >
> > ? Just curious.
>
> I'm not quite following.

Me too ;)

> Are you saying that if we switching the rwsem into
> slow mode before grabbing the locks, we can avoid inducing latencies on
> other users?

Well yes, in that another mutex_lock(&cgroup_mutex) won't sleep until
synchronize_rcu() (called under cgroup_mutex) completes.

> Hmm... assuming that I'm understanding you correctly, one
> problem with that approach is that everyone would be doing synchronize_rcu()
> whether they want to change favoring state.

Hmm... I didn't mean the changing if favoring state... And in any case,
this won't cause any additional synchronize_rcu().

Nevermind, please forget, this probably makes no sense.

Oleg.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-07-27 20:44    [W:2.784 / U:0.008 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site