On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 07:25:08AM -1000, Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I prefer having it as a separate flag because it's explicit and can be
> tested together with other flags. It's a weak preference tho and I can go
> either way if it bothers you much.
No trouble, please proceed with the new flag.
BTW, while I was just looking over the patch I noticed that in
@@ -1717,14 +1722,22 @@ static int css_populate_dir(struct cgrou
return 0;
if (!css->ss) {
- if (cgroup_on_dfl(cgrp))
- cfts = cgroup_base_files;
- else
- cfts = cgroup1_base_files;
-
- ret = cgroup_addrm_files(&cgrp->self, cgrp, cfts, true);
- if (ret < 0)
- return ret;
+ if (cgroup_on_dfl(cgrp)) {
+ ret = cgroup_addrm_files(&cgrp->self, cgrp,
+ cgroup_base_files, true);
+ if (ret < 0)
+ return ret;
+
+ if (cgroup_psi_enabled()) {
+ ret = cgroup_addrm_files(&cgrp->self, cgrp,
+ cgroup_psi_files, true);
+ if (ret < 0)
+ return ret;
Before the return here, the function should revert the base files first (or
silence the return value to 0 if such a partial population is acceptable).
(Actually, it looks like the revert in the subsys branch is unnecessary as
callers of css_populate_dir() would issue css_clear_dir() upon failure
eventually.)
Thanks,
Michal
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
