Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <db6284ba-b936-b38c-662d-3189c14596e7@shopee.com>
Date:   Tue, 29 Nov 2022 10:53:02 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:102.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.5.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cgroup/cpuset: Clean up cpuset_task_status_allowed
To:     Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc:     longman@redhat.com, lizefan.x@bytedance.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org,
        cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20221125075133.12718-1-haifeng.xu@shopee.com>
 <Y4TqvlOmXqY/CBEc@slm.duckdns.org>
From:   Haifeng Xu <haifeng.xu@shopee.com>
In-Reply-To: <Y4TqvlOmXqY/CBEc@slm.duckdns.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


On 2022/11/29 01:07, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 07:51:33AM +0000, haifeng.xu wrote:
>> cpuset_task_status_allowed just shows mems_allowed status, so
>> rename it to task_mems_allowed. Moreover, it's only used in
>> proc_pid_status, so move it to fs/proc/array.c. There is no
>> intentional function change.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: haifeng.xu <haifeng.xu@shopee.com>
> 
> mems_allowed being a very much cpuset feature, I don't see how this is an
> improvement. The new code is different and can be another way of doing it,
> sure, but there's no inherent benefit to it. What's the point of the churn?
> 
> Thanks.
> 

Hi, tejun.

In proc_pid_status, task_cpus_allowed is used to show cpus_allowed, similar to that,
task_mems_allowed is more specific to show mems_allowed. Also cpuset_task_status_allowed
is used to dispaly memory status in '/proc/<pid>/status' and isn't used in other files, so
keep it in the fs/proc/array.c.

Thanks,
Haifeng.