On Fri, Nov 04, 2022 at 02:20:50PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> +/**
> + * cgroup_rstat_css_flush - flush stats for the given css and cpu
> + * @css: target css to be flush
> + * @cpu: the cpu that holds the stats to be flush
> + *
> + * A lightweight rstat flush operation for a given css and cpu.
> + * Only the cpu_lock is being held for mutual exclusion, the cgroup_rstat_lock
> + * isn't used.
> + */
> +void cgroup_rstat_css_flush(struct cgroup_subsys_state *css, int cpu)
> +{
> + raw_spinlock_t *cpu_lock = per_cpu_ptr(&cgroup_rstat_cpu_lock, cpu);
> +
> + raw_spin_lock_irq(cpu_lock);
> + rcu_read_lock();
> + css->ss->css_rstat_flush(css, cpu);
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> + raw_spin_unlock_irq(cpu_lock);
> +}
Would it make sense to itereate CPUs within the helper rather than asking
the caller to do it? Also, in terms of patch sequencing, this introduces a
bug and then fixes it. Prolly better to not introduce the bug in the first
place.
Thanks.
--
tejun
