On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 06:14:28AM -0700, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
[...]
> > +
> > + if (!_css_rstat_cpu_trylock(css, cpu, &flags)) {
>
>
> IIUC this trylock will only fail if a BPF program runs in NMI context
> and tries to update cgroup stats, interrupting a context that is already
> holding the lock (i.e. updating or flushing stats).
>
Correct (though note that flushing side can be on a different CPU).
> How often does this happen in practice tho? Is it worth the complexity?
This is about correctness, so even a chance of occurance need the
solution.
>
> I wonder if it's better if we make css_rstat_updated() inherently
> lockless instead.
>
> What if css_rstat_updated() always just adds to a lockless tree,
Here I assume you meant lockless list instead of tree.
> and we
> defer constructing the proper tree to the flushing side? This should
> make updates generally faster and avoids locking or disabling interrupts
> in the fast path. We essentially push more work to the flushing side.
>
> We may be able to consolidate some of the code too if all the logic
> manipulating the tree is on the flushing side.
>
> WDYT? Am I missing something here?
>
Yes this can be done but I don't think we need to tie that to current
series. I think we can start with lockless in the nmi context and then
iteratively make css_rstat_updated() lockless for all contexts.
