Re: Expensive memory.stat + cpu.stat reads

[Ivan Babrou]

On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 5:18 PM Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 05:01:08PM -0700, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> > There have been a lot of problems coming from this global rstat lock:
> > hard lockups (when we used to flush atomically), unified flushing
> > being expensive, skipping flushing being inaccurate, etc.
> >
> > I wonder if it's time to rethink this lock and break it down into
> > granular locks. Perhaps a per-cgroup lock, and develop a locking
> > scheme where you always lock a parent then a child, then flush the
> > child and unlock it and move to the next child, etc. This will allow
> > concurrent flushing of non-root cgroups. Even when flushing the root,
> > if we flush all its children first without locking the root, then only
> > lock the root when flushing the top-level children, then some level of
> > concurrency can be achieved.
> >
> > Maybe this is too complicated, I never tried to implement it, but I
> > have been bouncing around this idea in my head for a while now.
> >
> > We can also split the update tree per controller. As far as I can tell
> > there is no reason to flush cpu stats for example when someone wants
> > to read memory stats.
>
> There's another thread. Let's continue there but I'm a bit skeptical whether
> splitting the lock is a good solution here. Regardless of locking, we don't
> want to run in an atomic context for that long anwyay.

Could you link to the other thread?