On 2024/4/23 2:38, Waiman Long wrote: > On 4/20/24 05:47, Xiu Jianfeng wrote: >> In cpuset_css_online(), CS_SCHED_LOAD_BALANCE has been cleared in the >> is_in_v2_mode() case under the same condition, don't do it twice. >> >> Signed-off-by: Xiu Jianfeng <xiujianfeng@xxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c | 7 ------- >> 1 file changed, 7 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c b/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c >> index e70008a1d86a..159525cdaeb9 100644 >> --- a/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c >> +++ b/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c >> @@ -4059,13 +4059,6 @@ static int cpuset_css_online(struct >> cgroup_subsys_state *css) >> clear_bit(CS_SCHED_LOAD_BALANCE, &cs->flags); >> } >> - /* >> - * For v2, clear CS_SCHED_LOAD_BALANCE if parent is isolated >> - */ >> - if (cgroup_subsys_on_dfl(cpuset_cgrp_subsys) && >> - !is_sched_load_balance(parent)) >> - clear_bit(CS_SCHED_LOAD_BALANCE, &cs->flags); >> - >> spin_unlock_irq(&callback_lock); >> if (!test_bit(CGRP_CPUSET_CLONE_CHILDREN, &css->cgroup->flags)) > > Thanks for catching this duplication. > > Could you remove the check inside is_in_v2_mode() instead? > is_in_v2_mode() can be true for cgroup v1 if the"cpuset_v2_mode" mount > option is specified. That balance flag change isn't appropriate for this > particular case. Sure, thanks for explanation, will do in v2. > > Thanks, > Longman >
