From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABD43C6FD18 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2023 18:53:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 1DB0D6B0080; Wed, 29 Mar 2023 14:53:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 18ADE6B0081; Wed, 29 Mar 2023 14:53:08 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 02B4F6B0082; Wed, 29 Mar 2023 14:53:07 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0014.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.14]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5B6A6B0080 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2023 14:53:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin05.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay01.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA8C11C63A5 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2023 18:53:07 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 80622833214.05.27A8718 Received: from mail-pl1-f179.google.com (mail-pl1-f179.google.com [209.85.214.179]) by imf29.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF042120010 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2023 18:53:05 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: imf29.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=gmail.com header.s=20210112 header.b=mOxPMiQc; dmarc=fail reason="SPF not aligned (relaxed), DKIM not aligned (relaxed)" header.from=kernel.org (policy=none); spf=pass (imf29.hostedemail.com: domain of htejun@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.179 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=htejun@gmail.com ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1680115985; h=from:from:sender:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:dkim-signature; bh=Iy+lCmVSfuCqZYe5m364REzCKXPfLlS/vXZ6Sv33Scc=; b=e3MZ1neTE9wnpT5BYXBJWvJEvdyRmhaEFrGqma6NiaWKfYPafwKoPeivL0rMm2HthDyaN5 rLUAxXNJ1r3u+pceQuVKmD34X1OVMWRH6c0fxUaMcZH28/89XWZEFosnCzKljW+jrbXUi+ wSe0bPeRUWT4Uveae/HU2WKr25/9Xy0= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf29.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=gmail.com header.s=20210112 header.b=mOxPMiQc; dmarc=fail reason="SPF not aligned (relaxed), DKIM not aligned (relaxed)" header.from=kernel.org (policy=none); spf=pass (imf29.hostedemail.com: domain of htejun@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.179 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=htejun@gmail.com ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1680115985; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=3yZ+8LF8OCmY4k/n0chdDOfDHPiNDljY0AzDcKSOqN1wblXXTtTWV6D0brhPbk3vyOBJUJ HgMRleOZN27sKJd+f6+GRkkvJRldSVeoXpQzESwX1tIkj4o4Fgok/R80jJL+1YU1RPLp3n HdyspQUaagId19E58qzEUGMI5s9Uen4= Received: by mail-pl1-f179.google.com with SMTP id c18so15825793ple.11 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2023 11:53:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; t=1680115984; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:sender:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=Iy+lCmVSfuCqZYe5m364REzCKXPfLlS/vXZ6Sv33Scc=; b=mOxPMiQc+w/5rfTRi9mFKJkmmWrWC+fsE86SxcySPbUJ/wuSW6AldTRs3OGXZtwHWv n75hgfb8Jx+JCDbIxrNwCNhfHbchPfWDoQgDmRZL3hRgD1A1QjHOFPi/idbqob30n3+o RfxqdtblWXtXCCQwP77ubsHpTykfAuRiiY2lmCEIRhp/1xZEWZJAWmKKb366YikERsZy b49+3GyAT5iO8CVbUWnbgaKvTSxLC1ZUui2x/A7empu+BSJ09ps4+rHLpazMy4Z/WTbC 7GovkOPkWDIYzMqS73vSWspbX6vZMVT+mWaCOhZRpJ0uPCggyCfuI4KlNvWHIo+z094h 3zKA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1680115984; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:sender:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=Iy+lCmVSfuCqZYe5m364REzCKXPfLlS/vXZ6Sv33Scc=; b=JvRT0/vu3Zu7V2eDw4yWWqFFKqLKtNNK0cXR+J+aX9Jfg3tMVorrb4CczVbQIhzawH ju2iCXiEh+QtsBWUMfE3fCeBxFm3pAtZ4i6shlRkuXE/xgxLL3EzOMPkffWYjhmS1zI+ 7Hp5rEAGb6pdiATrW/taomvnDAfPwLwQdQdOAPj3DtCVZstWW+tTbtC5AfaWUOmXz1iI WhcLd3PWR17Q70A5U1281KCASjyXn9Lg6n2nhmz643YhwMhu3XHVIJ5OdORP3WfJGWPx x/R7JKbJLhUz3EVND02iVfbIiX1GiU6QlmfxVkx8tPbFt6MHdeIfRCxC75KLNjKJZS7+ IZpQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9doBcO8Fnqqh5Ll0gVRFb2wdyDeG/hJFafL5N3X2NPipFA3Jxdk py1zggYoXvC2fQWkZotF1np8OUAOfPA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350YM1IDiFMeIxntBJ5tUubr/59hvq1vaUMPy4AplOEpt3OuDM5rihLjPuie4/yTJFSttNogBlw== X-Received: by 2002:a17:903:743:b0:1a1:cd69:d301 with SMTP id kl3-20020a170903074300b001a1cd69d301mr17833746plb.68.1680115984286; Wed, 29 Mar 2023 11:53:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (2603-800c-1a02-1bae-a7fa-157f-969a-4cde.res6.spectrum.com. [2603:800c:1a02:1bae:a7fa:157f:969a:4cde]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g6-20020a1709026b4600b001a19cf1b37esm23311756plt.40.2023.03.29.11.53.03 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 29 Mar 2023 11:53:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2023 08:53:02 -1000 From: Tejun Heo To: Yosry Ahmed Cc: Shakeel Butt , Josef Bacik , Jens Axboe , Zefan Li , Johannes Weiner , Michal Hocko , Roman Gushchin , Muchun Song , Andrew Morton , Vasily Averin , cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/7] cgroup: rstat: only disable interrupts for the percpu lock Message-ID: References: <20230323040037.2389095-1-yosryahmed@google.com> <20230323040037.2389095-2-yosryahmed@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Rspam-User: X-Rspamd-Server: rspam02 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: BF042120010 X-Stat-Signature: t5c6k7mg18ch4at1y74yhni51adspacj X-HE-Tag: 1680115985-446231 X-HE-Meta: U2FsdGVkX1/dH6I6ZqUMthGHsKzi4Q+1ECaUYnPVvk3nX3TVBNAyRSvmMWDJ0ePN8fMVbe/vxKAFw4h1DYN7UuzVxR64eUH7xOO97i16n2rdyLVLjt6wjcv7O3qQTFnYfRPim+YD8t7UgtH1b3mgpUk+f4gceWdjMmLT88GZ8M/fUX3zqUdalJcik1AtGC2ccT+rbYKgm2Mb4FewxaSTndiwTc7P2JPWKoo0TcrU0qJywpm9WofIizHAiXivXlMYVBL9QyYO4kIdjOvOC8uaOu6uu9vRhbIyEvU4v822mjdsTCluSOYCADhKD5qRQm4pu7gSbNJ/1FkE5qcXZUFPx/Ilx2mBmcMjQtDwcdy4nSHmNmzchWcJkTEXBS1pXM2ItbKU0sv18Q9R+OqJyHAJ2Nj5bBrJ+aLLGdhrBUk82WPtExIX91DHuUTgOZOhFg1I0Qy5WuAf1S8WEkBzpUOXc+lw0si9Fh4B1miB7GkmH2/7d6bnTm4nbvh8IKdTbebdFJYK7wvwZcbl6j8BtI2G8gM7A7Ni5tZ+Jv7qv7jwyB4RF0y3frgARFVY4w3ImGTHtnht43hsoRGHF/7RrGRZJabcERMoDeLchSW8ff1uFQ9bijvChCEU5hK7g+l/BqypW3ETLazGMWK1gYO+tbilo+vh95HaCRp85I85nq+6E0t4jVXT356daZ1OQ1mjGl7N6P6fbzbI20JTiLQXFySHJKh/KQ8jTQB/R0eT5WTZeE+X4rnEslz/6Mzw8/1X8AARsTnM6tFb/6+iZ49Xqj4YNXYtDyQudsy99ZrVpi7+b9qt180N3K8oWx/xn0bTVd9AK8RzvgX3J+F+jny7mqN00t0qguW34XsGWTm7HX2esdy06uKR72jCO90PLo1NF9waz6BYL0UgQ9HyeAZfMc0jbJksYiJ+4uTNbD0iTVhtbP7gWcHMGCVk2Evrhb3KyQHxVGYoa59IbWMC5oiEi99 gKwp/hdv 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 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000001, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: Hello, Yosry. On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 04:23:13PM -0700, Yosry Ahmed wrote: > Tejun, if having the lock be non-irq is a non-starter for you, I can This is an actual hazard. We see in prod these unprotected locks causing very big spikes in tail latencies and they can be tricky to root cause too and given the way rstat lock is used it's highly likely to be involved in those scenarios with the proposed change, so it's gonna be a nack from my end. > send a patch that instead gives up the lock and reacquires it at every > CPU boundary unconditionally -- or perhaps every N CPU boundaries to > avoid excessively releasing and reacquiring the lock. I'd just do the simple thing and see whether there's any perf penalty before making it complicated. I'd be pretty surprised if unlocking and relocking the same spinlock adds any noticeable overhead here. Thanks. -- tejun