On Fri, Nov 04, 2022 at 04:12:05PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > I should have named the function cgroup_rstat_css_cpu_flush() to indicate > that the cpu is a needed parameter. We can have a cgroup_rstat_css_flush() > in the future if the need arises. > > It is an optimization to call this function only if the corresponding cpu > has a pending lockless list. I could do cpu iteration here and call the > flushing function for all the CPUs. It is less optimized this way. Since it > is a slow path, I guess performance is not that critical. So I can go either > way. Please let me know your preference. Yeah, cpu_flush is fine. Let's leave it that way. Thanks. -- tejun
