Re: [PATCH 3/4 v2] cgroup: separate rstat locks for subsystems

JP Kobryn
2025-03-03T19:23:52Z

On 3/3/25 10:40 AM, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 03, 2025 at 06:29:53PM +0000, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 03, 2025 at 04:22:42PM +0100, Michal Koutný wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 01:55:42PM -0800, inwardvessel <inwardvessel@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> From: JP Kobryn <inwardvessel@gmail.com>
>>> ...
>>>> +static inline bool is_base_css(struct cgroup_subsys_state *css)
>>>> +{
>>>> + return css->ss == NULL;
>>>> +}
>>>
>>> Similar predicate is also used in cgroup.c (various cgroup vs subsys
>>> lifecycle functions, e.g. css_free_rwork_fn()). I think it'd better
>>> unified, i.e. open code the predicate here or use the helper in both
>>> cases (css_is_cgroup() or similar).
>>>
>>>> void __init cgroup_rstat_boot(void)
>>>> {
>>>> - int cpu;
>>>> + struct cgroup_subsys *ss;
>>>> + int cpu, ssid;
>>>>
>>>> - for_each_possible_cpu(cpu)
>>>> - raw_spin_lock_init(per_cpu_ptr(&cgroup_rstat_cpu_lock, cpu));
>>>> + for_each_subsys(ss, ssid) {
>>>> + spin_lock_init(&cgroup_rstat_subsys_lock[ssid]);
>>>> + }
>>>
>>> Hm, with this loop I realize it may be worth putting this lock into
>>> struct cgroup_subsys_state and initializing them in
>>> cgroup_init_subsys() to keep all per-subsys data in one pack.
>>
>> I thought about this, but this would have unnecessary memory overhead as
>> we only need one lock per-subsystem. So having a lock in every single
>> css is wasteful.
>>
>> Maybe we can put the lock in struct cgroup_subsys? Then we can still
>> initialize them in cgroup_init_subsys().
>>
>
> Actually one of things I was thinking about if we can just not have
> per-subsystem lock at all. At the moment, it is protecting
> rstat_flush_next field (today in cgroup and JP's series it is in css).
> What if we make it a per-cpu then we don't need the per-subsystem lock
> all? Let me know if I missed something which is being protected by this
> lock.
>
> This is help the case where there are multiple same subsystem stat
> flushers, possibly of differnt part of cgroup tree. Though they will
> still compete on per-cpu lock but still would be better than a
> sub-system level lock.

Right, the trade-off would mean one subsystem flushing could contend for
a cpu where a different subsystem is updating and vice versa.