On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 8:56 AM Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 04:00:34AM +0000, Yosry Ahmed wrote: > > @@ -644,26 +644,26 @@ static void __mem_cgroup_flush_stats(void) > > return; > > > > flush_next_time = jiffies_64 + 2*FLUSH_TIME; > > - cgroup_rstat_flush(root_mem_cgroup->css.cgroup, false); > > + cgroup_rstat_flush(root_mem_cgroup->css.cgroup, may_sleep); > > How is it safe to call this with may_sleep=true when it's holding the > stats_flush_lock? stats_flush_lock is always called with trylock, it is only used today so that we can skip flushing if another cpu is already doing a flush (which is not 100% correct as they may have not finished flushing yet, but that's orthogonal here). So I think it should be safe to sleep as no one can be blocked waiting for this spinlock. Perhaps it would be better semantically to replace the spinlock with an atomic test and set, instead of having a lock that can only be used with trylock? > > > atomic_set(&stats_flush_threshold, 0); > > spin_unlock(&stats_flush_lock); > > }
