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:   Tue, 23 May 2023 09:12:31 -1000
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To:     Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
Cc:     Michal =?iso-8859-1?Q?Koutn=FD?= <mkoutny@suse.com>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        cgroups@vger.kernel.org, Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Zefan Li <lizefan.x@bytedance.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>,
        Jiri Wiesner <jwiesner@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] cgroup: Rely on namespace_sem in
 current_cgns_cgroup_from_root explicitly
Message-ID: <ZG0QH7gvKNFj0n34@slm.duckdns.org>
References: <20230502133847.14570-1-mkoutny@suse.com>
 <20230502133847.14570-3-mkoutny@suse.com>
 <20230523-radar-gleich-781fd4006057@brauner>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230523-radar-gleich-781fd4006057@brauner>
Precedence: bulk

Hello,

On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 12:42:46PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
...
> Nope, we're not putting namespace_sem in a header. The code it protects
> is massively sensitive and it interacts with mount_lock and other locks.
> This stays private to fs/namespace.c as far as I'm concerned.

Michal, would it make sense to add a separate locking in cgroup.c? It'll add
a bit more overhead but not massively so and we should be able to get
similar gain without entangling with namespace locking.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun