Re: [PATCH 1/2] cgroup: Make operations on the cgroup root_list RCU safe

[Siddh Raman Pant <siddh.raman.pant@oracle.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1729 bytes --]

On Mon, Dec 02 2024 at 15:47:00 +0530, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 02, 2024 at 03:41:01PM +0530, Siddh Raman Pant wrote:
> > From: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com>
> > 
> > commit d23b5c577715892c87533b13923306acc6243f93 upstream.
> > 
> > At present, when we perform operations on the cgroup root_list, we must
> > hold the cgroup_mutex, which is a relatively heavyweight lock. In reality,
> > we can make operations on this list RCU-safe, eliminating the need to hold
> > the cgroup_mutex during traversal. Modifications to the list only occur in
> > the cgroup root setup and destroy paths, which should be infrequent in a
> > production environment. In contrast, traversal may occur frequently.
> > Therefore, making it RCU-safe would be beneficial.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
> > [fp: adapt to 5.10 mainly because of changes made by e210a89f5b07
> >  ("cgroup.c: add helper __cset_cgroup_from_root to cleanup duplicated
> >  codes")]
> > Signed-off-by: Fedor Pchelkin <pchelkin@ispras.ru>
> > [Shivani: Modified to apply on v5.4.y]
> > Signed-off-by: Shivani Agarwal <shivani.agarwal@broadcom.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Siddh Raman Pant <siddh.raman.pant@oracle.com>
> 
> I'm confused.  You do know what signed-off-by means, right?  When
> sending a patch on, you MUST sign off on it.

Even if I'm just *forwarding* the patch already posted on the mailing
list? I just added an r-b for the patch because I reviewed it, and did
no changes.

I'm sorry if I mistook the convention. In that case, the previous
patche emails I had sent has the signoff. I had thought that was
incorrect.

Thanks,
Siddh



[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]