From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Jemmy Wong <jemmywong512@gmail.com>
Cc: "Michal Koutný" <mkoutny@suse.com>,
hannes@cmpxchg.org, "Waiman Long" <longman@redhat.com>,
cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/3] cgroup: Add lock guard support
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2025 16:52:03 -1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aFYeU_dL0VOvyeYs@slm.duckdns.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9BDD726A-2EAE-46C3-9D00-004E051B8F5B@gmail.com>
On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 06:45:54PM +0800, Jemmy Wong wrote:
...
> > Tejun:
> >> There are no practical benefits to converting the code base at this point.
> >
> > I'd expect future backports (into such code) to be more robust wrt
> > pairing errors.
> > At the same time this is also my biggest concern about this change, the
> > wide-spread diff would make current backporting more difficult. (But
> > I'd counter argue that one should think forward here.)
Well, I'm not necessarily against it but I generally dislike wholesale
cleanups which create big patch application boundaries. If there are enough
practical benefits, sure, we should do it, but when it's things like this -
maybe possibly it's a bit better in the long term - the calculus isn't clear
cut. People can argue these things to high heavens on abstract grounds, but
if you break it down to practical gains vs. costs, it's not a huge
difference.
But, again, I'm not against it. Johannes, any second thoughts?
Thanks.
--
tejun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-06-21 2:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-06-06 16:18 [PATCH v1 0/3] cgroup: Add lock guard support Jemmy Wong
2025-06-06 16:18 ` [PATCH v1 1/3] cgroup: add lock guard support for cgroup_muetx Jemmy Wong
2025-06-17 9:09 ` Michal Koutný
2025-06-06 16:18 ` [PATCH v1 2/3] cgroup: add lock guard support for css_set_lock and rcu Jemmy Wong
2025-06-17 9:09 ` Michal Koutný
2025-06-06 16:18 ` [PATCH v1 3/3] cgroup: add lock guard support for others Jemmy Wong
2025-06-07 10:50 ` kernel test robot
2025-06-08 8:52 ` Jemmy Wong
2025-06-17 9:10 ` Michal Koutný
2025-06-09 16:34 ` [PATCH v1 0/3] cgroup: Add lock guard support Tejun Heo
2025-06-17 9:08 ` Michal Koutný
2025-06-20 10:45 ` Jemmy Wong
2025-06-21 2:52 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2025-06-23 14:03 ` Johannes Weiner
2025-06-30 17:39 ` Michal Koutný
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=aFYeU_dL0VOvyeYs@slm.duckdns.org \
--to=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=jemmywong512@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=mkoutny@suse.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).