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
next prev parent 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