On Mon, Dec 02 2024 at 15:47:00 +0530, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Mon, Dec 02, 2024 at 03:41:01PM +0530, Siddh Raman Pant wrote:
From: Yafang Shao laoar.shao@gmail.com
commit d23b5c577715892c87533b13923306acc6243f93 upstream.
At present, when we perform operations on the cgroup root_list, we must hold the cgroup_mutex, which is a relatively heavyweight lock. In reality, we can make operations on this list RCU-safe, eliminating the need to hold the cgroup_mutex during traversal. Modifications to the list only occur in the cgroup root setup and destroy paths, which should be infrequent in a production environment. In contrast, traversal may occur frequently. Therefore, making it RCU-safe would be beneficial.
Signed-off-by: Yafang Shao laoar.shao@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo tj@kernel.org [fp: adapt to 5.10 mainly because of changes made by e210a89f5b07 ("cgroup.c: add helper __cset_cgroup_from_root to cleanup duplicated codes")] Signed-off-by: Fedor Pchelkin pchelkin@ispras.ru [Shivani: Modified to apply on v5.4.y] Signed-off-by: Shivani Agarwal shivani.agarwal@broadcom.com Reviewed-by: Siddh Raman Pant siddh.raman.pant@oracle.com
I'm confused. You do know what signed-off-by means, right? When sending a patch on, you MUST sign off on it.
Even if I'm just *forwarding* the patch already posted on the mailing list? I just added an r-b for the patch because I reviewed it, and did no changes.
I'm sorry if I mistook the convention. In that case, the previous patche emails I had sent has the signoff. I had thought that was incorrect.
Thanks, Siddh