On 2024/7/26 3:07, Waiman Long wrote:
On 7/25/24 07:40, chenridong wrote:
On 2024/7/25 19:01, Kamalesh Babulal wrote:
On 7/25/24 7:25 AM, Chen Ridong wrote:
There are several functions to decrease attach_in_progress, and they
will wake up cpuset_attach_wq when attach_in_progress is zero. So,
add a helper to make it concise.
Signed-off-by: Chen Ridong <chenridong@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c | 28 +++++++++++++++-------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c b/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c
index d4322619e59a..c241845694ac 100644
--- a/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c
+++ b/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c
@@ -490,6 +490,17 @@ static inline void
check_insane_mems_config(nodemask_t *nodes)
}
}
+/*
+ * decrease cs->attach_in_progress.
+ * wake_up cpuset_attach_wq if cs->attach_in_progress==0.
In the description, adding locking constraint of cpuset_mutex would
be helpful.
Something like "cpuset_mutex must be held by the caller."
Thank you, I will to that.
+ */
+static inline void dec_attach_in_progress(struct cpuset *cs)
+{
+ cs->attach_in_progress--;
+ if (!cs->attach_in_progress)
+ wake_up(&cpuset_attach_wq);
+}
+
I would suggested a dec_attach_in_progress_locked() and a
dec_attach_in_progress() helpers. The dec_attach_in_progress() helper
acquires the cpuset_mutex and call dec_attach_in_progress_locked().
Inside the dec_attach_in_progress_locked(), you can either add a comment
about requiring cpuset_mutex held or add a
lockdep_assert_held(&cpuset_mutex).
Cheers,
Longman
Thanks, I will do that in v2.
Ridong
