[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <babdca88-1461-4d47-989a-c7a011ddc2bd@redhat.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2025 20:14:29 -0400
From: Waiman Long <llong@...hat.com>
To: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev>, Gregory Price <gourry@...rry.net>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...a.com, hannes@...xchg.org,
mhocko@...nel.org, roman.gushchin@...ux.dev, muchun.song@...ux.dev,
tj@...nel.org, mkoutny@...e.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] vmscan,cgroup: apply mems_effective to reclaim
On 4/19/25 2:48 PM, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 19, 2025 at 01:38:24AM -0400, Gregory Price wrote:
>>
>> +bool cpuset_node_allowed(struct cgroup *cgroup, int nid)
>> +{
>> + struct cgroup_subsys_state *css;
>> + unsigned long flags;
>> + struct cpuset *cs;
>> + bool allowed;
>> +
>> + css = cgroup_get_e_css(cgroup, &cpuset_cgrp_subsys);
>> + if (!css)
>> + return true;
>> +
>> + cs = container_of(css, struct cpuset, css);
>> + spin_lock_irqsave(&callback_lock, flags);
> Do we really need callback_lock here? We are not modifying and I am
> wondering if simple rcu read lock is enough here (similar to
> update_nodemasks_hier() where parent's effective_mems is accessed within
> rcu read lock).
The callback_lock is required to ensure the stability of the
effective_mems which may be in the process of being changed if not taken.
Cheers,
Longman
>
>> + /* On v1 effective_mems may be empty, simply allow */
>> + allowed = node_isset(nid, cs->effective_mems) ||
>> + nodes_empty(cs->effective_mems);
>> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&callback_lock, flags);
>> + css_put(css);
>> + return allowed;
>> +}
Powered by blists - more mailing lists