On 7/24/24 06:24, Chen Ridong wrote:
The child_ecpus_count variable was previously used to update sibling cpumask when parent's effective_cpus is updated. However, it became obsolete after commit e2ffe502ba45 ("cgroup/cpuset: Add cpuset.cpus.exclusive for v2"). It should be removed. Signed-off-by: Chen Ridong <chenridong@xxxxxxxxxx> --- kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c | 25 ++++--------------------- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c b/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c index 40ec4abaf440..d4322619e59a 100644 --- a/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c +++ b/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c @@ -188,10 +188,8 @@ struct cpuset { /* * Default hierarchy only: * use_parent_ecpus - set if using parent's effective_cpus - * child_ecpus_count - # of children with use_parent_ecpus set */ int use_parent_ecpus; - int child_ecpus_count;/** number of SCHED_DEADLINE tasks attached to this cpuset, so that we @@ -1512,7 +1510,6 @@ static void reset_partition_data(struct cpuset *cs) if (!cpumask_and(cs->effective_cpus, parent->effective_cpus, cs->cpus_allowed)) { cs->use_parent_ecpus = true; - parent->child_ecpus_count++; cpumask_copy(cs->effective_cpus, parent->effective_cpus); } } @@ -1688,12 +1685,8 @@ static int remote_partition_enable(struct cpuset *cs, int new_prs, spin_lock_irq(&callback_lock); isolcpus_updated = partition_xcpus_add(new_prs, NULL, tmp->new_cpus); list_add(&cs->remote_sibling, &remote_children); - if (cs->use_parent_ecpus) { - struct cpuset *parent = parent_cs(cs); - + if (cs->use_parent_ecpus) cs->use_parent_ecpus = false; - parent->child_ecpus_count--; - } spin_unlock_irq(&callback_lock); update_unbound_workqueue_cpumask(isolcpus_updated);@@ -2318,15 +2311,10 @@ static void update_cpumasks_hier(struct cpuset *cs, struct tmpmasks *tmp,*/ if (is_in_v2_mode() && !remote && cpumask_empty(tmp->new_cpus)) { cpumask_copy(tmp->new_cpus, parent->effective_cpus); - if (!cp->use_parent_ecpus) { + if (!cp->use_parent_ecpus) cp->use_parent_ecpus = true; - parent->child_ecpus_count++; - } - } else if (cp->use_parent_ecpus) { + } else if (cp->use_parent_ecpus) cp->use_parent_ecpus = false; - WARN_ON_ONCE(!parent->child_ecpus_count); - parent->child_ecpus_count--; - }
The usual practice is to keep the {} in the else part even if it is a single statement when the if-part requires {}. Anyway, it is a minor issue.
Acked-by: Waiman Long <longman@xxxxxxxxxx>
