[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aEijC1iHehAxdsfi@slm.duckdns.org>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2025 11:26:35 -1000
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>,
Muchun Song <muchun.song@...ux.dev>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>,
Harry Yoo <harry.yoo@...cle.com>,
Yosry Ahmed <yosry.ahmed@...ux.dev>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Meta kernel team <kernel-team@...a.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] cgroup: make css_rstat_updated nmi safe
Hello,
On Mon, Jun 09, 2025 at 03:56:10PM -0700, Shakeel Butt wrote:
...
> + self = &rstatc->lnode;
> + if (!try_cmpxchg(&(rstatc->lnode.next), &self, NULL))
> return;
>
> + llist_add(&rstatc->lnode, lhead);
I may be missing something but when you say multiple inserters, you mean the
function being re-entered from stacked contexts - ie. process context, BH,
irq, nmi? If so, would it make sense to make the nmi and non-nmi paths use
separate lnode? In non-nmi path, we can just disable irq and test whether
lnode is empty and add it. nmi path can just test whether its lnode is empty
and add it. I suppose nmi's don't nest, right? If they do, we can do
try_cmpxchg() there I suppose.
While the actual addition to the list would be relatively low frequency,
css_rstat_updated() itself can be called pretty frequently. Before, the hot
path was early exit after data_race(css_rstat_cpu(css, cpu)->updated_next).
After, the hot path is now !try_cmpxchg() which doesn't seem great.
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists