From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] cgroup: implement cgroup v2 thread support Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 13:48:42 -0400 Message-ID: <20170719174842.GR3365493@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com> References: <20170717020721.3612468-1-tj@kernel.org> <20170717020721.3612468-6-tj@kernel.org> <20170717141409.sqafufjupsiffnri@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <825f2eaa-568a-a156-f04d-9235b20e2614@redhat.com> <5fa00590-551f-85d2-511b-ef4033781228@redhat.com> <20170718171034.GE585283@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com> <20170719162937.GP3365493@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=D/ZJltHrr3k2oUkc+EDWL2qkusvOcM0y9E47zTks7Ks=; b=okVR4yqfxJ1JBmfMqupc2C3X5MOvgU46kXCe1BQJ0cMWdL5kJ68kWGxl29MOjC1mgs SbYPcCOLRLZoecbhNDQLithfsradSF+uBRvV36jVZBXArzaENmorYfxUmMBCEqdOttpq 7DSyXLrFBRGyXZs24ezCqoGVEAO1C5G51+u3WWTQDM6mvRgjGldhyxsKwa4twJ+UG65K IjFKLKfbyVbIoqoDLiIkDvxSvpwnyrdraVkIuoIlVcsRnyVGEtK2sr5DQTAq1K7/dtbA L6iLbC1IJ0jkHZcQMUiuVdWnjrsW993HPHxtDbKBlhlbkC7x6AiKJABpZet/Hk3psb9Y BhIQ== Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: cgroups-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Waiman Long Cc: Peter Zijlstra , lizefan-hv44wF8Li93QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, hannes-druUgvl0LCNAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org, mingo-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, kernel-team-b10kYP2dOMg@public.gmane.org, pjt-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, luto-kltTT9wpgjJwATOyAt5JVQ@public.gmane.org, efault-Mmb7MZpHnFY@public.gmane.org, torvalds-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org, guro-b10kYP2dOMg@public.gmane.org Hello, Waiman. On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 01:09:38PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > For me, that is the only good reason why we should keep the current > behavior. So I am fine with that. > > + cgrp->dom_cgrp = cgrp->dom_cgrp; > > However, I am still puzzled by above line of code, should it be just > > cgrp->dom_cgrp = cgrp; Oh I see. Yeah, that's just a silly (harmless) bug. The field gets properly initialized in init_cgroup_housekeeping(). I'll remove that line. Thanks! -- tejun From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932179AbdGSRss (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Jul 2017 13:48:48 -0400 Received: from mail-qt0-f194.google.com ([209.85.216.194]:37089 "EHLO mail-qt0-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755964AbdGSRsq (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Jul 2017 13:48:46 -0400 Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 13:48:42 -0400 From: Tejun Heo To: Waiman Long Cc: Peter Zijlstra , lizefan@huawei.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org, mingo@redhat.com, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com, pjt@google.com, luto@amacapital.net, efault@gmx.de, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, guro@fb.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] cgroup: implement cgroup v2 thread support Message-ID: <20170719174842.GR3365493@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com> References: <20170717020721.3612468-1-tj@kernel.org> <20170717020721.3612468-6-tj@kernel.org> <20170717141409.sqafufjupsiffnri@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <825f2eaa-568a-a156-f04d-9235b20e2614@redhat.com> <5fa00590-551f-85d2-511b-ef4033781228@redhat.com> <20170718171034.GE585283@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com> <20170719162937.GP3365493@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello, Waiman. On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 01:09:38PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > For me, that is the only good reason why we should keep the current > behavior. So I am fine with that. > > + cgrp->dom_cgrp = cgrp->dom_cgrp; > > However, I am still puzzled by above line of code, should it be just > > cgrp->dom_cgrp = cgrp; Oh I see. Yeah, that's just a silly (harmless) bug. The field gets properly initialized in init_cgroup_housekeeping(). I'll remove that line. Thanks! -- tejun