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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DATE_IN_PAST_03_06, DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2338CC433E0 for ; Mon, 8 Feb 2021 20:58:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 774C664E05 for ; Mon, 8 Feb 2021 20:58:16 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 774C664E05 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id E26BE6B0005; Mon, 8 Feb 2021 15:58:15 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id DAFC26B006C; Mon, 8 Feb 2021 15:58:15 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id C78266B006E; Mon, 8 Feb 2021 15:58:15 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0155.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.155]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACC9E6B0005 for ; Mon, 8 Feb 2021 15:58:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin12.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 744D8180995D4 for ; Mon, 8 Feb 2021 20:58:15 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 77796313350.12.095D89E Received: from mail-qt1-f173.google.com (mail-qt1-f173.google.com [209.85.160.173]) by imf05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D91D5E0001AA for ; Mon, 8 Feb 2021 20:58:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qt1-f173.google.com with SMTP id w20so11418339qta.0 for ; Mon, 08 Feb 2021 12:58:14 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=tqRaxICy5YHBMmHcX2M4Wd1YNoE/TgL6qyHQaFgZCcY=; b=Kbipus5vPp2mNkhFtKdD511qL2yTMBCGkJZfr16sI2xPQnoo74CcVb7BKoEvNsK0Ka uhkpzga2kyNnhAT8doX26kRfoHUMEh4usIoPhV1QXcI2l7N6BuHrhC5pj7g0nRcThPfM Im3oy3HkeuZHZPj26peXKX7xI4Q9Gw27KDbhyW4CvpnP7D+0Qm76ctrraFJM+mjD5jSG 7huMyxqW0/n0d3Rm74L0WMPLdSydyk2YfXTZXTtJzY4NGFMUamuDbbqU5exQeM4Lk9US mHcN3S9Rqqm7mORgR40fI2W97hMnvhan02fsuGrxKZW1wV1MMqdvgxNdhbrDp6nPQRrs sI5w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id :references:mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=tqRaxICy5YHBMmHcX2M4Wd1YNoE/TgL6qyHQaFgZCcY=; b=WQt62qpiJ+KMWWpzem+Pa9OrMKeohynIdh1CwvU/1F+ecOZmySzer2q+HMEhXLXgla 4Edym/OaFKuCfNbalFemA0FdQNCciDyYkR4T50elW/JEqhaRRFcWog3Rh33Q7bMFcmx2 cH1DEp64dHUmwYMQ+UIc2VhS+RYKEfwcw+KnchnPeBJ9O2YGAQ9AI7MX72yxSGsgg4u0 ofwYm92qbLg65vZJENJ/+E0bXgbYWKzFF7itzMOWzkKlDfKRnuDTDDggCVoAq7dVkMqw HJWouhGI9u627m60yoTgJQGidK4V6FxrPp+p8dBC0tJT5XFLez52pNMsdNsFz+KCMghN apCw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530b1X3tefyplnJs+NQipjG3quuEwzYdoHGSPXl/sMRHZloC5FwM 9Judpd5OwSwl/bX4TNUkVe0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz1H9hgXr0QIuDRCjaDc/VNli6qF6kkuPHto504MFo2+7jHJi+4ymrEjDcL6YxhKJImjUH4lA== X-Received: by 2002:ac8:5c0a:: with SMTP id i10mr16404804qti.239.1612817894151; Mon, 08 Feb 2021 12:58:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (dhcp-6c-ae-f6-dc-d8-61.cpe.echoes.net. [72.28.8.195]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n4sm2933535qtp.72.2021.02.08.12.58.13 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 08 Feb 2021 12:58:13 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2021 10:58:11 -0500 From: Tejun Heo To: Johannes Weiner Cc: Andrew Morton , Michal Hocko , Roman Gushchin , Shakeel Butt , linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/8] cgroup: rstat: punt root-level optimization to individual controllers Message-ID: References: <20210205182806.17220-1-hannes@cmpxchg.org> <20210205182806.17220-6-hannes@cmpxchg.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Rspamd-Server: rspam03 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: D91D5E0001AA X-Stat-Signature: i6ieezyzqo7khq5cis5ec8zs3euzczd8 Received-SPF: none (gmail.com>: No applicable sender policy available) receiver=imf05; identity=mailfrom; envelope-from=""; helo=mail-qt1-f173.google.com; client-ip=209.85.160.173 X-HE-DKIM-Result: pass/pass X-HE-Tag: 1612817893-132510 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: Hello, On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 03:29:21PM -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > > @@ -789,6 +793,7 @@ static void blkcg_rstat_flush(struct cgroup_subsys_state *css, int cpu) > > > u64_stats_update_end(&blkg->iostat.sync); > > > > > > /* propagate global delta to parent */ > > > + /* XXX: could skip this if parent is root */ > > > if (parent) { > > > u64_stats_update_begin(&parent->iostat.sync); > > > blkg_iostat_set(&delta, &blkg->iostat.cur); > > > > Might as well update this similar to cgroup_base_stat_flush()? > > I meant to revisit that, but I'm never 100% confident when it comes to > the interaction and lifetime of css, blkcg and blkg_gq. Yeah, it does get hairy. > IIUC, the blkg_gq->parent linkage always matches the css parent > linkage; it just exists as an optimization for ancestor walks, which > would otherwise have to do radix lookups when going through the css. But yes, at least this part is straight-forward. > So with the cgroup_parent() check at the beginning of the function > making sure we're looking at a non-root group, blkg_gq->parent should > also never be NULL and I can do if (paren->parent) directly, right? I think so. > > > static void cgroup_base_stat_flush(struct cgroup *cgrp, int cpu) > > > { > > > - struct cgroup *parent = cgroup_parent(cgrp); > > > struct cgroup_rstat_cpu *rstatc = cgroup_rstat_cpu(cgrp, cpu); > > > + struct cgroup *parent = cgroup_parent(cgrp); > > > > Is this chunk intentional? > > Yeah, it puts the local variable declarations into reverse christmas > tree ordering to make them a bit easier to read. It's a while-at-it > cleanup, mostly a force of habit. I can drop it if it bothers you. I don't mind either way. Was just wondering whether it was accidental. Thanks. -- tejun