Re: [PATCH/for-next v4 2/4] cgroup/cpuset: Defer housekeeping_update() calls from CPU hotplug to workqueue

[Waiman Long <llong@redhat.com>]

On 2/10/26 10:46 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> Le Sat, Feb 07, 2026 at 09:00:45PM -0500, Waiman Long a écrit :
>> On 2/6/26 5:28 PM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>>> Le Fri, Feb 06, 2026 at 03:37:10PM -0500, Waiman Long a écrit :
>>>> The update_isolation_cpumasks() function can be called either directly
>>>> from regular cpuset control file write with cpuset_full_lock() called
>>>> or via the CPU hotplug path with cpus_write_lock and cpuset_mutex held.
>>>>
>>>> As we are going to enable dynamic update to the nozh_full housekeeping
>>>> cpumask (HK_TYPE_KERNEL_NOISE) soon with the help of CPU hotplug,
>>>> allowing the CPU hotplug path to call into housekeeping_update() directly
>>>> from update_isolation_cpumasks() will likely cause deadlock. So we
>>> Why do we need to call housekeeping_update() from hotplug? I would
>>> expect it to be called only when cpuset control file are written since
>>> housekeeping cpumask don't deal with online CPUs but with possible
>>> CPUs.
>> It needs to call housekeeping_update() only in the special case where there
>> is only one active CPU in an isolated partition and that CPU goes offline.
>> In this case, the partition becomes disabled that causes change in the
>> isolated CPUs. I know this special case shouldn't happen in real world, but
>> I do have test case to test that.
> But why is that needed? This isn't changing the mask of domain isolated CPUs.
> Only their onlineness. I mean timers, workqueue, kthreads all have their
> hotplug callbacks able to deal with that already.

The current behavior is to remove the CPUs from the cpuset.cpus.isolated 
when an isolated partition is invalidated. It doesn't currently 
differentiate if that is from hotplug or by writing to the cpuset 
control files. I am planning to handle handle hotplug differently so 
that it won't need to change cpuset.cpus.isolated.

>
>> Theoretically, we can add code to handle this special case to keep this
>> offline isolated CPU in a special pool without changing isolated_cpus and
>> hence  HK_TYPE_DOMAIN cpumask. In this way, we shouldn't need to call
>> housekeeping_update() from CPU hotplug. I will probably do that as CPU
>> hotplug will be used when we make HK_TYPE_KERNEL_NOISE cpumask dynamic in
>> the near future.
> That doesn't look necessary.

Yes, I think we can use the existing infrastructure to handle it without 
the need to add a special pool.

Cheers,
Longman