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:   Fri, 5 May 2023 05:18:28 -1000
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To:     Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com>
Cc:     Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
        Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>,
        Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
        Michal =?iso-8859-1?Q?Koutn=FD?= <mkoutny@suse.com>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/5] writeback: move wb_over_bg_thresh() call outside
 lock section
Message-ID: <ZFUeRAYMJZQ7J7Ld@slm.duckdns.org>
References: <20230421174020.2994750-1-yosryahmed@google.com>
 <20230421174020.2994750-2-yosryahmed@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20230421174020.2994750-2-yosryahmed@google.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 05:40:16PM +0000, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> wb_over_bg_thresh() calls mem_cgroup_wb_stats() which invokes an rstat
> flush, which can be expensive on large systems. Currently,
> wb_writeback() calls wb_over_bg_thresh() within a lock section, so we
> have to do the rstat flush atomically. On systems with a lot of
> cpus and/or cgroups, this can cause us to disable irqs for a long time,
> potentially causing problems.
> 
> Move the call to wb_over_bg_thresh() outside the lock section in
> preparation to make the rstat flush in mem_cgroup_wb_stats() non-atomic.
> The list_empty(&wb->work_list) check should be okay outside the lock
> section of wb->list_lock as it is protected by a separate lock
> (wb->work_lock), and wb_over_bg_thresh() doesn't seem like it is
> modifying any of wb->b_* lists the wb->list_lock is protecting.
> Also, the loop seems to be already releasing and reacquring the
> lock, so this refactoring looks safe.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com>
> Reviewed-by: Michal Koutn? <mkoutny@suse.com>
> Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>

Acked-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>

Thanks.

-- 
tejun