From: Ridong Chen <ridong.chen@linux.dev>
To: "Waiman Long" <longman@redhat.com>, "Tejun Heo" <tj@kernel.org>,
"Johannes Weiner" <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
"Michal Koutný" <mkoutny@suse.com>,
"Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@atomlin.com>,
Guopeng Zhang <guopeng.zhang@linux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH-next v6 1/6] cgroup/cpuset: Fix node inconsistencies between cpuset_update_tasks_nodemask() and cpuset_attach()
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2026 11:29:53 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2e50dea5-df07-4f89-9dbb-ad75f14cf9bf@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e9257ecd-00b2-4767-838e-b335c6df6a39@redhat.com>
On 6/6/2026 1:09 AM, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 6/5/26 3:48 AM, Ridong Chen wrote:
>>
>> On 6/4/2026 11:02 PM, Waiman Long wrote:
>>> Whenever memory node mask is changed, there are 4 places where the node
>>> mask has to be updated or used.
>>> 1) task's node mask via cpuset_change_task_nodemask()
>>> 2) memory policy binding via mpol_rebind_mm()
>>> 3) if memory migration is enabled, migrate from old_mems_allowed to
>>> the new node mask via cpuset_migrate_mm().
>>> 4) setting old_mems_allowed
>>>
>>> These memory actions are done in cpuset_update_tasks_nodemask() and
>>> cpuset_attach(). However there are inconsistencies in what node masks
>>> are being used in these 2 functions.
>>>
>>> In cpuset_update_tasks_nodemask(),
>>> - cpuset_change_task_nodemask(): guarantee_online_mems()
>>> - mpol_rebind_mm(): mems_allowed
>>> - cpuset_migrate_mm(): guarantee_online_mems()
>>> - old_mems_allowed: guarantee_online_mems()
>>>
>>> In cpuset_attach(),
>>> - cpuset_change_task_nodemask(): guarantee_online_mems()
>>> - mpol_rebind_mm(): effective_mems
>>> - cpuset_migrate_mm(): effective_mems
>>> - old_mems_allowed: effective_mems
>>>
>>> These inconsistencies dates back to quite a long time ago and it is
>>> hard to say what should be the correct values.
>>>
>>> The guarantee_online_mems() function returns a node mask from current or
>>> an ancestor cpuset that is a subset of node_states[N_MEMORY]. Nodes in
>>> node_states[N_MEMORY] are all online, i.e. in node_states[N_ONLINE].
>>> However, node in node_states[N_ONLINE] may not have memory. So
>>> node_states[N_MEMORY] should be a subset of node_states[N_ONLINE].
>>>
>>> The guarantee_online_mems() function should only be useful for v1 where
>>> mems_allowed is the same as effective_mems. With v2, the memory nodes
>>> in effective_mems should always be a subset of node_states[N_MEMORY].
>>> The only time that may not be true is when a memory hot-unplug operation
>>> is in progress and a memory node is removed from node_states[N_MEMORY]
>>> but not yet reflected in effective_mems as cpuset_handle_hotplug()
>>> has not yet been called from cpuset_track_online_nodes(). When
>>> cpuset_handle_hotplug() is called later, the memory node setting
>>> of the relevant cpusets and tasks will be updated. So replacing the
>>> guarantee_online_mems() call by just using cs->effective_mems should
>>> be fine.
>>>
>> The message should be updated.
> Could you be more specific about what message are you referring to?
After this patch, guarantee_online_mems() for v2 simply returns
cs->effective_mems directly. So the paragraph:
"The guarantee_online_mems() function should only be useful for v1
where mems_allowed is the same as effective_mems."
is no longer accurate — guarantee_online_mems() is now useful for
both v1 and v2, just with different behavior. For v2 it returns
effective_mems directly; for v1 it walks up the hierarchy to find
an ancestor with online memory nodes.
Similarly, "So replacing the guarantee_online_mems() call by just
using cs->effective_mems should be fine" describes the old reasoning,
but the patch actually keeps guarantee_online_mems() calls in place
and makes the function itself return effective_mems for v2. The commit
message should reflect what the patch actually does.
>>
>>> Let use the following setup for both of them and make them consistent.
>>> - cpuset_change_task_nodemask(): guarantee_online_mems()
>>> - mpol_rebind_mm(): effective_mems
>>> - cpuset_migrate_mm(): guarantee_online_mems()
>>> - old_mems_allowed: guarantee_online_mems()
>>>
>>> So for v2, it is effectively all effective_mems. For v1,
>>> mpol_rebind_mm()
>>> uses mems_allowed which may differ from what guarantee_online_mems()
>>> returns.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
>>> ---
>>> kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
>>> 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c b/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c
>>> index 6bdb68689c24..8305b5830c3c 100644
>>> --- a/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c
>>> +++ b/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c
>>> @@ -489,7 +489,10 @@ static void guarantee_active_cpus(struct
>>> task_struct *tsk,
>>> * Return in *pmask the portion of a cpusets's mems_allowed that
>>> * are online, with memory. If none are online with memory, walk
>>> * up the cpuset hierarchy until we find one that does have some
>>> - * online mems. The top cpuset always has some mems online.
>>> + * online mems. The top cpuset always has some mems online. With v2,
>>> + * effective_mems should always contain online memory nodes except
>>> + * during the transition period where a memory node hotunplug operation
>>> + * is in progress.
>>> *
>>> * One way or another, we guarantee to return some non-empty subset
>>> * of node_states[N_MEMORY].
>>> @@ -498,6 +501,10 @@ static void guarantee_active_cpus(struct
>>> task_struct *tsk,
>>> */
>>> static void guarantee_online_mems(struct cpuset *cs, nodemask_t
>>> *pmask)
>>> {
>>> + if (cpuset_v2()) {
>>> + *pmask = cs->effective_mems;
>>> + return;
>>> + }
>>> while (!nodes_and(*pmask, cs->effective_mems,
>>> node_states[N_MEMORY]))
>>> cs = parent_cs(cs);
>>> }
>>> @@ -2616,6 +2623,13 @@ static void *cpuset_being_rebound;
>>> * Iterate through each task of @cs updating its mems_allowed to the
>>> * effective cpuset's. As this function is called with
>>> cpuset_mutex held,
>>> * cpuset membership stays stable.
>>> + *
>>> + * - cpuset_change_task_nodemask(): guarantee_online_mems()
>>> + * - mpol_rebind_mm(): effective_mems
>>> + * - cpuset_migrate_mm(): guarantee_online_mems()
>>> + * - old_mems_allowed: guarantee_online_mems()
>>> + *
>>> + * For v2, guarantee_online_mems() should just return effective_mems.
>>> */
>>> void cpuset_update_tasks_nodemask(struct cpuset *cs)
>>> {
>>> @@ -2624,7 +2638,6 @@ void cpuset_update_tasks_nodemask(struct cpuset
>>> *cs)
>>> struct task_struct *task;
>>> cpuset_being_rebound = cs; /* causes mpol_dup() rebind */
>>> -
>>> guarantee_online_mems(cs, &newmems);
>>> /*
>>> @@ -2650,7 +2663,7 @@ void cpuset_update_tasks_nodemask(struct cpuset
>>> *cs)
>>> migrate = is_memory_migrate(cs);
>>> - mpol_rebind_mm(mm, &cs->mems_allowed);
>>> + mpol_rebind_mm(mm, &cs->effective_mems);
>>> if (migrate)
>>> cpuset_migrate_mm(mm, &cs->old_mems_allowed, &newmems);
>>> else
>>> @@ -3148,17 +3161,18 @@ static void cpuset_attach(struct
>>> cgroup_taskset *tset)
>>> /*
>>> * In the default hierarchy, enabling cpuset in the child cgroups
>>> - * will trigger a number of cpuset_attach() calls with no change
>>> - * in effective cpus and mems. In that case, we can optimize out
>>> - * by skipping the task iteration and update.
>>> + * will trigger a cpuset_attach() call with no change in
>>> effective cpus
>>> + * and mems. In that case, we can optimize out by skipping the task
>>> + * iteration and update.
>>> */
>>> - if (cpuset_v2() && !cpus_updated && !mems_updated) {
>>> + if (cpuset_v2()) {
>>> cpuset_attach_nodemask_to = cs->effective_mems;
>>> - goto out;
>>> + if (!cpus_updated && !mems_updated)
>>> + goto out;
>>> + } else {
>>> + guarantee_online_mems(cs, &cpuset_attach_nodemask_to);
>>> }
>>> - guarantee_online_mems(cs, &cpuset_attach_nodemask_to);
>>> -
>> Nit.
>>
>> I prefer:
>>
>> guarantee_online_mems(cs, &cpuset_attach_nodemask_to);
>> if (cpuset_v2() && !cpus_updated && !mems_updated)
>> goto out;
>
> This is fixed in patch 7. I may have to send a new version of the patch
> 7 integrated back into individual patches.
>
> Cheers,
> Longman
>
>>> cgroup_taskset_for_each(task, css, tset)
>>> cpuset_attach_task(cs, task);
>>> @@ -3168,7 +3182,6 @@ static void cpuset_attach(struct
>>> cgroup_taskset *tset)
>>> * if there is no change in effective_mems and
>>> CS_MEMORY_MIGRATE is
>>> * not set.
>>> */
>>> - cpuset_attach_nodemask_to = cs->effective_mems;
>>> if (!is_memory_migrate(cs) && !mems_updated)
>>> goto out;
>>> @@ -3176,7 +3189,7 @@ static void cpuset_attach(struct
>>> cgroup_taskset *tset)
>>> struct mm_struct *mm = get_task_mm(leader);
>>> if (mm) {
>>> - mpol_rebind_mm(mm, &cpuset_attach_nodemask_to);
>>> + mpol_rebind_mm(mm, &cs->effective_mems);
>>> /*
>>> * old_mems_allowed is the same with mems_allowed
>> Other than that, looks good to me.
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Ridong Chen <ridong.chen@linux.dev>
>>
>
--
Best regards,
Ridong
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-06-07 3:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-06-04 15:02 [PATCH-next v6 0/6] cgroup/cpuset: Support multiple source/destination cpusets for cpuset_*attach() Waiman Long
2026-06-04 15:02 ` [PATCH-next v6 1/6] cgroup/cpuset: Fix node inconsistencies between cpuset_update_tasks_nodemask() and cpuset_attach() Waiman Long
2026-06-05 7:48 ` Ridong Chen
2026-06-05 17:09 ` Waiman Long
2026-06-07 3:29 ` Ridong Chen [this message]
2026-06-04 15:02 ` [PATCH-next v6 2/6] cgroup/cpuset: Add a cpuset_reserve_dl_bw() helper Waiman Long
2026-06-04 15:02 ` [PATCH-next v6 3/6] cgroup/cpuset: Expand the scope of cpuset_can_attach_check() Waiman Long
2026-06-04 15:02 ` [PATCH-next v6 4/6] cgroup/cpuset: Make cpuset_attach_old_cs track task group leaders Waiman Long
2026-06-04 15:02 ` [PATCH-next v6 5/6] cgroup/cpuset: Move mpol_rebind_mm/cpuset_migrate_mm() calls inside cpuset_attach_task() Waiman Long
2026-06-04 15:02 ` [PATCH-next v6 6/6] cgroup/cpuset: Support multiple source/destination cpusets for cpuset_*attach() Waiman Long
2026-06-05 0:02 ` [PATCH-next v6 7/6] cgroup/cpuset: Set old_mems_allowed from guarantee_online_mems() consistently Waiman Long
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=2e50dea5-df07-4f89-9dbb-ad75f14cf9bf@linux.dev \
--to=ridong.chen@linux.dev \
--cc=atomlin@atomlin.com \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=guopeng.zhang@linux.dev \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=mkoutny@suse.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox