Re: [PATCH v4 4/8] cgroup: Remove CGROUP_BUILTIN_SUBSYS_COUNT

[Li Zefan <lizefan-hv44wF8Li93QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>]

On 2012/9/13 14:57, Daniel Wagner wrote:
> Hi Li,
> 
> On 13.09.2012 08:41, Li Zefan wrote:
>>> @@ -1321,11 +1321,13 @@ static int parse_cgroupfs_options(char *data, struct cgroup_sb_opts *opts)
>>>        * take duplicate reference counts on a subsystem that's already used,
>>>        * but rebind_subsystems handles this case.
>>>        */
>>> -    for (i = CGROUP_BUILTIN_SUBSYS_COUNT; i < CGROUP_SUBSYS_COUNT; i++) {
>>> +    for (i = 0; i < CGROUP_SUBSYS_COUNT; i++) {
>>>           unsigned long bit = 1UL << i;
>>>
>>>           if (!(bit & opts->subsys_mask))
>>>               continue;
>>> +        if (!subsys[i]->module)
>>> +            continue;
>>
>> This check is not necessary. If it's builtin, try_module_get() will just return 1, and
>> we're fine.
> 
> Yes, I didn't see the try_module_get. Although I think with leaving the test away it would change the behavior, e.g.
> 
>         if (!subsys[i]->module)
>             continue;
>         if (!try_module_get(subsys[i]->module)) {
>             module_pin_failed = true;
>             break;
>         }
> 
> module_pin_failed would be set then and we would jump into the error code later.
> 

no behavioral change. For a builtin subsys, we won't run into the if block and have module_pin_failed be set.

> This tests looks a bit ugly though I think leaving it away and relying on try_module_get() is not correct.
> 

I don't think this is bad. The block layer code does the similar thing in elevator_get().

And we call module_put() unconditionally in rebind_subsys().

>>> @@ -1437,6 +1443,7 @@ static void init_cgroup_housekeeping(struct cgroup *cgrp)
>>>       INIT_LIST_HEAD(&cgrp->event_list);
>>>       spin_lock_init(&cgrp->event_list_lock);
>>>       simple_xattrs_init(&cgrp->xattrs);
>>> +    memset(cgrp->subsys, 0, sizeof(cgrp->subsys));
>>
>> This seems an unrelated change, and is redundant. Am I missing something?
> 
> The reason why it is necessary to NULL all the entries in the array, is that task_cls_classid() and task_netprioidx() check the return pointer from task_subsys_state(). If it is NULL those function know that the subsystem is not ready to be used. Should I move this change to the next patch then?
> 

It's already guaranteed the passing @cgrp is zeored. that's why cgrp->flags is not explicitly initialized here.