From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH] cgroup/cpuset: fix circular locking dependency Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 08:06:17 -0800 Message-ID: <20171213160617.GQ3919388@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com> References: <1511868946-23959-1-git-send-email-prsood@codeaurora.org> <623f214b-8b9a-f967-7a3d-ca9c06151267@codeaurora.org> <20171204202219.GF2421075@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com> <20171204225825.GP2421075@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com> <20171204230117.GF20227@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20171211152059.GH2421075@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=x2MrNLOpirbHrA/wrNjREHDSVOPYAKGCopoUwF4gILQ=; b=Bpsh/GoYa0YRc4y1XpsFEkOtacpXzoro+FLgyUSL996nCajlspKLzphI0pBk5rddi7 c96EH1UhtrS4yGk3bCOJfzPnXKXjvF92qt8bnI5j1aGzfR3BiPI62ns5N4sUoAVB8Qr2 Ydn5huFKsQuqI9uZ+iY6/047q9jt34BnZmb7v+8QCYdg5E8ow6TBdoeUZLt6S15wJtbv SaMIieqmOkO796NQUifzDlouom4RuSoglAi8b7bRu3o0ouwQECcWP9zpq3d/TzdniPuo EApfyN5YPb/7pRcgB/gVCnRJw1+aDEwSVqNiPElpwaqavEI1v/yGC/bXGprLb2y1v8zr 5wQg== Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Prateek Sood Cc: Peter Zijlstra , avagin@gmail.com, mingo@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, sramana@codeaurora.org Hello, Prateek. On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 01:20:46PM +0530, Prateek Sood wrote: > This change makes the usage of cpuset_hotplug_workfn() from cpu > hotplug path synchronous. For memory hotplug it still remains > asynchronous. Ah, right. > Memory migration happening from cpuset_hotplug_workfn() is > already asynchronous by queuing cpuset_migrate_mm_workfn() in > cpuset_migrate_mm_wq. > > cpuset_hotplug_workfn() > cpuset_hotplug_workfn(() > cpuset_migrate_mm() > queue_work(cpuset_migrate_mm_wq) > > It seems that memory migration latency might not have > impact with this change. > > Please let me know if you meant something else by cpuset > migration taking time when memory migration is turned on. No, I didn't. I was just confused about which part became synchronous. So, I don't have anything against making the cpu part synchronous, but let's not do that as the fix to the deadlocks cuz, while we can avoid them by changing cpuset, I don't think cpuset is the root cause for them. If there are benefits to making cpuset cpu migration synchronous, let's do that for those benefits. Thanks. -- tejun