On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 06:35:02PM +0000, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 02:06:43PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 05:16:02PM +0000, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> > > @@ -365,9 +352,8 @@ __bpf_kfunc void cgroup_rstat_flush(struct cgroup *cgrp)
> > > void cgroup_rstat_flush_hold(struct cgroup *cgrp)
> > > __acquires(&cgroup_rstat_lock)
> > > {
> > > - might_sleep();
> > > + cgroup_rstat_flush(cgrp);
> > > __cgroup_rstat_lock(cgrp, -1);
> > > - cgroup_rstat_flush_locked(cgrp);
> > > }
> >
> > Might as well remove cgroup_rstat_flush_hold/release entirely? There
> > are no external users, and the concept seems moot when the lock is
> > dropped per default. cgroup_base_stat_cputime_show() can open-code the
> > lock/unlock to stabilize the counts while reading.
>
> Yeah I missed the fact that the users are internal because the functions
> are not static. I also don't see the point of keeping them.
>
> Tejun/Greg, should I send a patch on top of this one or do you prefer
> sending a new version?
Please send a patch on top.
Thanks.
--
tejun
