linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Chen Ridong <chenridong@huaweicloud.com>
To: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@linux.dev>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: "Johannes Weiner" <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
	"Michal Koutný" <mkoutny@suse.com>,
	"Roman Gushchin" <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>,
	"Kuniyuki Iwashima" <kuniyu@google.com>,
	"Daniel Sedlak" <daniel.sedlak@cdn77.com>,
	"Meta kernel team" <kernel-team@meta.com>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	"Jakub Kicinski" <kuba@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] cgroup: add lockless fast-path checks to cgroup_file_notify()
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2026 09:50:53 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <40c77bba-0862-4422-b23e-2a10cd01c728@huaweicloud.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260228142018.3178529-3-shakeel.butt@linux.dev>


Hi Shakeel,

Good series to move away from the global lock.

On 2026/2/28 22:20, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> Add two lockless checks before acquiring the lock:
> 
> 1. READ_ONCE(cfile->kn) NULL check to skip torn-down files.
> 2. READ_ONCE(cfile->notified_at) check to skip when within the
>    rate-limit window (~10ms).
> 
> Both checks have safe error directions -- a stale read can only cause
> unnecessary lock acquisition, never a missed notification.  Annotate
> all write sites with WRITE_ONCE() to pair with the lockless readers.
> 
> The trade-off is that trailing timer_reduce() calls during bursts are
> skipped, so the deferred notification that delivers the final state
> may be lost.  This is acceptable for the primary callers like
> __memcg_memory_event() where events keep arriving.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@linux.dev>
> Reported-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
> ---
>  kernel/cgroup/cgroup.c | 21 ++++++++++++++-------
>  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/cgroup/cgroup.c b/kernel/cgroup/cgroup.c
> index 33282c7d71e4..5473ebd0f6c1 100644
> --- a/kernel/cgroup/cgroup.c
> +++ b/kernel/cgroup/cgroup.c
> @@ -1749,7 +1749,7 @@ static void cgroup_rm_file(struct cgroup *cgrp, const struct cftype *cft)
>  		struct cgroup_file *cfile = (void *)css + cft->file_offset;
>  
>  		spin_lock_irq(&cgroup_file_kn_lock);
> -		cfile->kn = NULL;
> +		WRITE_ONCE(cfile->kn, NULL);
>  		spin_unlock_irq(&cgroup_file_kn_lock);
>  
>  		timer_delete_sync(&cfile->notify_timer);
> @@ -4430,7 +4430,7 @@ static int cgroup_add_file(struct cgroup_subsys_state *css, struct cgroup *cgrp,
>  		timer_setup(&cfile->notify_timer, cgroup_file_notify_timer, 0);
>  
>  		spin_lock_irq(&cgroup_file_kn_lock);
> -		cfile->kn = kn;
> +		WRITE_ONCE(cfile->kn, kn);
>  		spin_unlock_irq(&cgroup_file_kn_lock);
>  	}
>  
> @@ -4686,20 +4686,27 @@ int cgroup_add_legacy_cftypes(struct cgroup_subsys *ss, struct cftype *cfts)
>   */
>  void cgroup_file_notify(struct cgroup_file *cfile)
>  {
> -	unsigned long flags;
> +	unsigned long flags, last, next;
>  	struct kernfs_node *kn = NULL;
>  
> +	if (!READ_ONCE(cfile->kn))
> +		return;
> +
> +	last = READ_ONCE(cfile->notified_at);
> +	if (time_before_eq(jiffies, last + CGROUP_FILE_NOTIFY_MIN_INTV))
> +		return;
> +

Previously, if a notification arrived within the rate-limit window, we would
still call timer_reduce(&cfile->notify_timer, next) to schedule a deferred
notification.

With this change, returning early here bypasses that timer scheduling entirely.
Does this risk missing notifications that would have been delivered by the timer?

>  	spin_lock_irqsave(&cgroup_file_kn_lock, flags);
>  	if (cfile->kn) {
> -		unsigned long last = cfile->notified_at;
> -		unsigned long next = last + CGROUP_FILE_NOTIFY_MIN_INTV;
> +		last = cfile->notified_at;
> +		next = last + CGROUP_FILE_NOTIFY_MIN_INTV;
>  
> -		if (time_in_range(jiffies, last, next)) {
> +		if (time_before_eq(jiffies, next)) {
>  			timer_reduce(&cfile->notify_timer, next);
>  		} else {
>  			kn = cfile->kn;
>  			kernfs_get(kn);
> -			cfile->notified_at = jiffies;
> +			WRITE_ONCE(cfile->notified_at, jiffies);
>  		}
>  	}
>  	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cgroup_file_kn_lock, flags);

-- 
Best regards,
Ridong



  reply	other threads:[~2026-03-02  1:51 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-02-28 14:20 [PATCH 0/3] cgroup: improve cgroup_file_notify() scalability Shakeel Butt
2026-02-28 14:20 ` [PATCH 1/3] cgroup: reduce cgroup_file_kn_lock hold time in cgroup_file_notify() Shakeel Butt
2026-02-28 14:20 ` [PATCH 2/3] cgroup: add lockless fast-path checks to cgroup_file_notify() Shakeel Butt
2026-03-02  1:50   ` Chen Ridong [this message]
2026-02-28 14:20 ` [PATCH 3/3] cgroup: replace global cgroup_file_kn_lock with per-cgroup_file lock Shakeel Butt

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=40c77bba-0862-4422-b23e-2a10cd01c728@huaweicloud.com \
    --to=chenridong@huaweicloud.com \
    --cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=daniel.sedlak@cdn77.com \
    --cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
    --cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
    --cc=kuba@kernel.org \
    --cc=kuniyu@google.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mkoutny@suse.com \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=roman.gushchin@linux.dev \
    --cc=shakeel.butt@linux.dev \
    --cc=tj@kernel.org \
    /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