On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 10:23 PM Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 1/28/25 7:05 AM, Martin KaFai Lau Wrote: > > On 1/27/25 2:15 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > >> On Sun, Jan 26, 2025 at 1:31 AM Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> > >>> On 1/25/25 4:20 AM, Martin KaFai Lau Wrote: > >>>> > >>>> imo, that should be a better option instead of having more unnecessary failures in all other normal use cases which will not be interested in tracing cgroup_storage_ptr(). > >> > >> Martin, > >> > >> task_storage_map_free() is doing this busy inc/dec already, > >> in that sense doing the same in cgroup_storage_map_free() fits. > > > > sgtm. Agree to be consistent with the task_storage_map_free. > > > > would be nice if the busy inc/dec usage can be revisited after the rqspinlock work. > > Agree, and 1ms interval of deadlock dection seems acceptable > for most workloads. > > > > > Acked-by: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Thanks Alexei, Martin. Applied.
