Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Sender: Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 12 Dec 2022 12:16:35 -1000
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To:     Michal =?iso-8859-1?Q?Koutn=FD?= <mkoutny@suse.com>
Cc:     Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
        Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>,
        Zefan Li <lizefan.x@bytedance.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        "Dennis Zhou (Facebook)" <dennisszhou@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH-block v2 2/3] blk-cgroup: Don't flush a blkg if destroyed
Message-ID: <Y5eoQ8UBN8Xpc+Wp@slm.duckdns.org>
References: <20221211222058.2946830-1-longman@redhat.com>
 <20221211222058.2946830-3-longman@redhat.com>
 <20221212125953.GE16456@blackbody.suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20221212125953.GE16456@blackbody.suse.cz>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 01:59:53PM +0100, Michal Koutn? wrote:
> Hello.
> 
> On Sun, Dec 11, 2022 at 05:20:57PM -0500, Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> wrote:
> > Before commit 3b8cc6298724 ("blk-cgroup: Optimize blkcg_rstat_flush()"),
> > blkg's stats is only flushed if they are online.
> 
> I'm not sure I follow -- css_release_work_fn/cgroup_rstat_flush may be
> called on an offlined blkcg (offlined!=released). There's no invariant
> ensuring offlined blkcg won't be flushed. (There is only current
> situation when there is no reader of io data that'd need them flushed
> [1].)
> 
> > In addition, the stat flushing of blkgs in blkcg_rstat_flush()
> > includes propagating the rstat data to its parent. However, if a blkg
> > has been destroyed (offline), the validity of its parent may be
> > questionable.
> 
> Parents won't be freed (neither offlined) before children (see
> css_killed_work_fn). It should be regularly OK to pass data into a
> parent of an offlined blkcg.
> 
> > For safety, revert back to the old behavior by ignoring offline
> > blkg's.
> 
> I don't know if this is a good reasoning. If you argue that offlined
> children needn't be taken into parent's account, then I think it's more
> efficient to exclude the offlined blkcgs from update. (With the caveat I
> have in [1].)

Yeah, I'm not sure about this patch either. Doesn't seem necessary.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun