From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9977C21ABB4; Mon, 9 Jun 2025 16:34:44 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1749486884; cv=none; b=BovdVHpd7q3+8XgtoynK0hJsvvbf6M1h6/DC24dbtVhlRy/TZTjV4nLQOVQxeZXoP3ADt6BTLBtuAEEUvy2kvGC71KcPoNclARFXsDhUamPjITLNbjXVPgoOcdG58EgfDcpzFNmitoTeZBRJictyLnud7odHW+nPzdZRX44Qpyo= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1749486884; c=relaxed/simple; bh=sfvI4exa5y1xUxJQrirry+A/qvKeilSqQTra6fvux3E=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=RNyB/uCR40J+Y4mQdbtJMTcSvjH/r2C7126sUwpydWtjPoiSe2oyQkGxv8XB9RsL8P1S+BeJDTwWuugDCMwHsTm3sihQ5BElVP00sXDdkqkmVCP9f6SNWnlp9wUolxUCoKH+90EwUdmhCKhZC1rWU/xJbUBHtr4em9tyc/ZXGXQ= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=WlVh02FI; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="WlVh02FI" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EBA2CC4CEEB; Mon, 9 Jun 2025 16:34:43 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1749486884; bh=sfvI4exa5y1xUxJQrirry+A/qvKeilSqQTra6fvux3E=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=WlVh02FIIlBRY93JLNx5v2/Ae4jVl7TR3vS7YnbFJNHtHI/LK5dzfWCQHuYD7p6Ri AFMj3RHW3vtlxlUFOmkBXKBJnOYbiKEBPvJpAQ7puV4xWqG+xY3I4MVnvI9rDgskZ0 ptPpuWH2i4a77zWxA8fN13vvQQzX0XzHImrsgXr4J4EU6fQFsOB5GtR5BPOcLYK39Z gS6VFE+oXOAvOn3WuGik7Ngkef31bGZu+p5RvmhIPQRiaycjxOUqHRnpd73eW795yW u11xxD8l45r5+zlQX1Y9nvmDYjNGm2i2a0Ve0jOIQx6ITiHEi1314ZM+RYgUPYH5TA pgetudX6Y/2ug== Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2025 06:34:42 -1000 From: Tejun Heo To: Jemmy Wong Cc: Michal =?iso-8859-1?Q?Koutn=FD?= , Johannes Weiner , Waiman Long , cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/3] cgroup: Add lock guard support Message-ID: References: <20250606161841.44354-1-jemmywong512@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20250606161841.44354-1-jemmywong512@gmail.com> On Sat, Jun 07, 2025 at 12:18:38AM +0800, Jemmy Wong wrote: > v1 changes: > - remove guard support for BPF > - split patch into parts > > v0 link: > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250605211053.19200-1-jemmywong512@gmail.com/ > > Jemmy Wong (3): > cgroup: add lock guard support for cgroup_muetx > cgroup: add lock guard support for css_set_lock and rcu > cgroup: add lock guard support for others So, I'm rather ambivalent about this patchset but leaning towards not applying them. The lock guards are fine but I'm not sure what converting the existing code base wholesale buys us. We're already pretty good at detecting locking problems with lockdep and all and the code being modified hasn't seen significant locking changes in ages. There are no practical benefits to converting the code base at this point. Thanks. -- tejun