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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] blk-iocost: add refcounting for iocg
To:     Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Yu Kuai <yukuai1@huaweicloud.com>
Cc:     hch@infradead.org, josef@toxicpanda.com, axboe@kernel.dk,
        cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, yi.zhang@huawei.com,
        "yukuai (C)" <yukuai3@huawei.com>
References: <20221227125502.541931-1-yukuai1@huaweicloud.com>
 <20221227125502.541931-2-yukuai1@huaweicloud.com>
 <Y7XzUee5Bq+DoIC1@slm.duckdns.org>
 <c63ee2ad-23d5-3be0-c731-28494398b391@huaweicloud.com>
 <Y7cX0SJ0y6+EIY5Q@slm.duckdns.org>
 <7dcdaef3-65c1-8175-fea7-53076f39697f@huaweicloud.com>
 <Y7iCId3pnEnLqY8G@slm.duckdns.org>
 <875eb43e-202d-5b81-0bff-ef0434358d99@huaweicloud.com>
 <Y7xbpidpq7+DqJan@slm.duckdns.org>
 <a71f997f-6cae-d57b-85dd-2fd499d238f6@huaweicloud.com>
 <Y72wF/b0/xNRmP7f@slm.duckdns.org>
From:   Yu Kuai <yukuai1@huaweicloud.com>
Message-ID: <53b30ac8-d608-ba0b-8b1b-7fe5cfed6d61@huaweicloud.com>
Date:   Wed, 11 Jan 2023 09:36:25 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <Y72wF/b0/xNRmP7f@slm.duckdns.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=gbk; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

?? 2023/01/11 2:36, Tejun Heo д??:
> Hello,
> 
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 09:39:44AM +0800, Yu Kuai wrote:
>> As I tried to explain before, we can make sure blkg_free() is called
>> in order, but blkg_free() from remove cgroup can concurrent with
>> deactivate policy, and we can't guarantee the order of ioc_pd_free()
>> that is called both from blkg_free() and blkcg_deactivate_policy().
>> Hence I don't think #3 is possible.
> 
> Hahaha, sorry that I keep forgetting that. This doesn't really feel like
> that important or difficult part of the problem tho. Can't it be solved by
> synchronizing blkg free work item against the deactivate path with a mutex?
> 

I'm not sure, of course this can fix the problem, but two spinlock
'blkcg->lock' and 'q->queue_lock' are used to protect blkg_destroy()
currently, add a mutex??disk level?) requires a refactor, which seems
complex to me.

Thanks,
Kuai