On 11/4/22 16:13, Tejun Heo wrote:
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.
Will do.
Cheers,
Longman
