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 A54EB1E0E0A for ; Mon, 20 Jan 2025 19:40:47 +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=1737402047; cv=none; b=EdYWOpIK+kic+tzmBu9MLrapwfjxhNCekR/saR0CJqam0mcIy++bcvuhfasEWle7hlSUsUgJJkw+IE+KA3tZ61YdQW/+qBp5gaADz2hbyK5wnFKOv+eOczlgX7LmkquQSb0AkJa/hYYyrNc0A6LLCBiRZC0zE60r3TciPDlHdh8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1737402047; c=relaxed/simple; bh=L2JungrhmSGKU/aHWSA1Z8rVywvNrUtd6hb/w/9MVUI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=Rg5cDomuFbzsffVyvF9srw/FPVD5G/tsTlwviuPowLcTnBxUSpNHOrHkxsRL7+EIALajwHwc1tpM6m3Vmu7w6DcTAl6qXe3zSBpvABd6XkwxsTl7TF01qMmiAXOx9PKHKGH0A5uPMlXtj5XjKH5t2wBKc9bIDic6DMLGv8P12s4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=a417/nSb; 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="a417/nSb" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D24CEC4CEDD; Mon, 20 Jan 2025 19:40:46 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1737402047; bh=L2JungrhmSGKU/aHWSA1Z8rVywvNrUtd6hb/w/9MVUI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=a417/nSbpmP83djB1Jr+UJn/OkkpdmoJ2ITdheHvo4N5fTol8K+51zufCHAtyd/Px jQEclrZyv0gt3NbnmjlJfOEIX0I2YQXzlNHBTjRuaHgPj6aV3YwSaxvCkHC7GoM8mA SiUtwLgDJcSimNF+IsSrtSW2qYb89oujpSI3ku3hq5aDHaCYB+DX9OmTpZvWBTpCij cvqcrey6qAn1dOTPKQzRxdsQWq9UZWwKbD6VczfWWddNHOkFg8o5DcHjzEToI/KKlB 4MAwNlVmBagKP/r+LKnvrE4h3fPOLfn7eOV4ZBmeBTQmFoyjIjMZ1vJxHDGNrSvsQE vwAnWNkYtJRwA== Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2025 11:40:45 -0800 From: Jakub Kicinski To: Antoine Tenart Cc: davem@davemloft.net, pabeni@redhat.com, edumazet@google.com, stephen@networkplumber.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/4] net-sysfs: remove the rtnl_trylock/restart_syscall construction Message-ID: <20250120114045.3711fdc9@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: <20250117102612.132644-1-atenart@kernel.org> References: <20250117102612.132644-1-atenart@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 11:26:07 +0100 Antoine Tenart wrote: > The series initially aimed at improving spins (and thus delays) while > accessing net sysfs under rtnl lock contention[1]. The culprit was the > trylock/restart_syscall constructions. There wasn't much interest at the > time but it got traction recently for other reasons (lowering the rtnl > lock pressure). Sorry for the flip flop but would you mind if we applied this right after the merge window? It doesn't feel super risky, but on the small chance that it does blow up - explaining why we applied it during the MW would be more of an apology..