Hi Li,
On 13.09.2012 09:14, Li Zefan wrote:
On 2012/9/13 14:57, Daniel Wagner wrote:
Hi Li,
On 13.09.2012 08:41, Li Zefan wrote:
@@ -1321,11 +1321,13 @@ static int parse_cgroupfs_options(char *data, struct cgroup_sb_opts *opts)
* take duplicate reference counts on a subsystem that's already used,
* but rebind_subsystems handles this case.
*/
- for (i = CGROUP_BUILTIN_SUBSYS_COUNT; i < CGROUP_SUBSYS_COUNT; i++) {
+ for (i = 0; i < CGROUP_SUBSYS_COUNT; i++) {
unsigned long bit = 1UL << i;
if (!(bit & opts->subsys_mask))
continue;
+ if (!subsys[i]->module)
+ continue;
This check is not necessary. If it's builtin, try_module_get() will just return 1, and
we're fine.
Yes, I didn't see the try_module_get. Although I think with leaving the test away it would change the behavior, e.g.
if (!subsys[i]->module)
continue;
if (!try_module_get(subsys[i]->module)) {
module_pin_failed = true;
break;
}
module_pin_failed would be set then and we would jump into the error code later.
no behavioral change. For a builtin subsys, we won't run into the if block and have module_pin_failed be set.
Ah, I understand.
This tests looks a bit ugly though I think leaving it away and relying on try_module_get() is not correct.
I don't think this is bad. The block layer code does the similar thing in elevator_get().
And we call module_put() unconditionally in rebind_subsys().
Okay, then these tests really not needed. I'll have them removed now
and tested the result. All works fine.
@@ -1437,6 +1443,7 @@ static void init_cgroup_housekeeping(struct cgroup *cgrp)
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&cgrp->event_list);
spin_lock_init(&cgrp->event_list_lock);
simple_xattrs_init(&cgrp->xattrs);
+ memset(cgrp->subsys, 0, sizeof(cgrp->subsys));
This seems an unrelated change, and is redundant. Am I missing something?
The reason why it is necessary to NULL all the entries in the array, is that task_cls_classid() and task_netprioidx() check the return pointer from task_subsys_state(). If it is NULL those function know that the subsystem is not ready to be used. Should I move this change to the next patch then?
It's already guaranteed the passing @cgrp is zeored. that's why cgrp->flags is not explicitly initialized here.
Stupid me, I didn't see the kzalloc. You are absolutely right.
Thanks for your review.
cheers,
daniel
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cgroups" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
