Re: [PATCH v1 2/3] cgroup/rstat: convert cgroup_rstat_lock back to mutex

[Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@linux.dev>]

On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 11:02:06AM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> 
> 
> On 18/04/2024 04.19, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
[...]
> > 
> > I will keep the high-level conversation about using the mutex here in
> > the cover letter thread, but I am wondering why we are keeping the
> > lock dropping logic here with the mutex?
> > 
> 
> I agree that yielding the mutex in the loop makes less sense.
> Especially since the raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(cpu_lock, flags) call
> will be a preemption point for my softirq.   But I kept it because, we
> are running a CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY kernel, so I still worried that
> there was no sched point for other userspace processes while holding the
> mutex, but I don't fully know the sched implication when holding a mutex.
> 

Are the softirqs you are interested in, raised from the same cpu or
remote cpu? What about local_softirq_pending() check in addition to
need_resched() and spin_needbreak() checks? If softirq can only be
raised on local cpu then convert the spin_lock to non-irq one (Please
correct me if I am wrong but on return from hard irq and not within bh
or irq disabled spin_lock, the kernel will run the pending softirqs,
right?). Did you get the chance to test these two changes or something
similar in your prod environment?