Hi Tejun!
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 09:37:54AM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> In cgroup1, while cpuacct isn't actually controlling any resources, it
> is a separate controller due to combinaton of two factors -
s/combinaton/combination
> @@ -4466,6 +4470,8 @@ static void css_free_work_fn(struct work_struct *work)
> */
> cgroup_put(cgroup_parent(cgrp));
> kernfs_put(cgrp->kn);
> + if (cgroup_on_dfl(cgrp))
> + cgroup_stat_exit(cgrp);
It looks like this "if (cgroup_on_dfl(cgrp))" works here and further similar to
"#ifdef CGROUP_V2". I wonder, if it's better to move this check into the
calling function: cgroup_stat_exit() in this case.
> +void cgroup_stat_show_cputime(struct seq_file *seq, const char *prefix)
> +{
What are any other possible prefix values except "cpu."?
> +void __init cgroup_stat_boot(void)
> +{
> + int cpu;
> +
> + for_each_possible_cpu(cpu)
> + raw_spin_lock_init(per_cpu_ptr(&cgroup_cpu_stat_lock, cpu));
> +
> + WARN_ON(cgroup_stat_init(&cgrp_dfl_root.cgrp));
I'm not sure WARN_ON() is enough here: if cgroup_stat_init() returned -ENOMEM,
the following OOPS is not avoidable, as you don't check cpu_stat pointer.
But it's very unlikely, of course.
Overall looks very good!
Thanks!
--
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
