For a cgroup subsystem who should init early, then it should carefully
take care of the implementation of css_alloc, because it will be called
before mm_init() setup the world.
Luckily we don't, and we better explicitly assign the early_init field
to 0, for document reason.
Signed-off-by: Jianyu Zhan <[email protected]>
---
mm/hugetlb_cgroup.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/mm/hugetlb_cgroup.c b/mm/hugetlb_cgroup.c
index 595d7fd..b5368f8 100644
--- a/mm/hugetlb_cgroup.c
+++ b/mm/hugetlb_cgroup.c
@@ -405,4 +405,5 @@ struct cgroup_subsys hugetlb_cgrp_subsys = {
.css_alloc = hugetlb_cgroup_css_alloc,
.css_offline = hugetlb_cgroup_css_offline,
.css_free = hugetlb_cgroup_css_free,
+ .early_init = 0,
};
--
2.0.0-rc0
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Jianyu Zhan <[email protected]> wrote:
> For a cgroup subsystem who should init early, then it should carefully
> take care of the implementation of css_alloc, because it will be called
> before mm_init() setup the world.
>
> Luckily we don't, and we better explicitly assign the early_init field
> to 0, for document reason.
>
But other fields still missed, if any. Fair?
> Signed-off-by: Jianyu Zhan <[email protected]>
> ---
> mm/hugetlb_cgroup.c | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/mm/hugetlb_cgroup.c b/mm/hugetlb_cgroup.c
> index 595d7fd..b5368f8 100644
> --- a/mm/hugetlb_cgroup.c
> +++ b/mm/hugetlb_cgroup.c
> @@ -405,4 +405,5 @@ struct cgroup_subsys hugetlb_cgrp_subsys = {
> .css_alloc = hugetlb_cgroup_css_alloc,
> .css_offline = hugetlb_cgroup_css_offline,
> .css_free = hugetlb_cgroup_css_free,
> + .early_init = 0,
> };
> --
> 2.0.0-rc0
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
>
Hi, hillf,
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Hillf Danton <[email protected]> wrote:
> But other fields still missed, if any. Fair?
yep, it is not fair.
Sure for this global variable struct, if not initailized, its all
fields will be initialized
to 0 or null(depending on its type). The point here is no to deprive
the rights of
compiler/linker of doing this initialization, it is mainly for
documentation reason.
Actually this field's value would affect how ->css_alloc should implemented.
Concretely, if early_init is nonzero, then ->css_alloc *must not* call kzalloc,
because in cgroup implementation, ->css_alloc will be called earlier before
mm_init().
I don't think that the value of one field(early_init) has a so subtle
restrition on the
another field(css_alloc) is a good thing, but since it is there,
docment it should
be needed.
Thanks,
Jianyu Zhan
On 2014/4/22 15:01, Jianyu Zhan wrote:
> Hi, hillf,
>
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Hillf Danton <[email protected]> wrote:
>> But other fields still missed, if any. Fair?
>
> yep, it is not fair.
>
> Sure for this global variable struct, if not initailized, its all
> fields will be initialized
> to 0 or null(depending on its type). The point here is no to deprive
> the rights of
> compiler/linker of doing this initialization, it is mainly for
> documentation reason.
> Actually this field's value would affect how ->css_alloc should implemented.
>
> Concretely, if early_init is nonzero, then ->css_alloc *must not* call kzalloc,
> because in cgroup implementation, ->css_alloc will be called earlier before
> mm_init().
>
> I don't think that the value of one field(early_init) has a so subtle
> restrition on the
> another field(css_alloc) is a good thing, but since it is there,
> docment it should
> be needed.
>
I don't see how things can be improved by initializing it to 0 explicitly,
if anything needs to be improved.