Re: [PATCH/for-next v4 4/4] cgroup/cpuset: Eliminate some duplicated rebuild_sched_domains() calls

[Waiman Long <llong@redhat.com>]

On 2/9/26 2:53 AM, Chen Ridong wrote:
>
> On 2026/2/7 4:37, Waiman Long wrote:
>> Now that we are going to defer any changes to the HK_TYPE_DOMAIN
>> housekeeping cpumasks to either task_work or workqueue
>> where rebuild_sched_domains() call will be issued. The current
>> rebuild_sched_domains_locked() call near the end of the cpuset critical
>> section can be removed in such cases.
>>
>> Currently, a boolean force_sd_rebuild flag is used to decide if
>> rebuild_sched_domains_locked() call needs to be invoked. To allow
>> deferral that like, we change it to a tri-state sd_rebuild enumaration
>> type.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
>> ---
>>   kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c | 20 ++++++++++++++------
>>   1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c b/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c
>> index d26c77a726b2..e224df321e34 100644
>> --- a/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c
>> +++ b/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c
>> @@ -173,7 +173,11 @@ static bool		isolcpus_twork_queued;	/* T */
>>    * Note that update_relax_domain_level() in cpuset-v1.c can still call
>>    * rebuild_sched_domains_locked() directly without using this flag.
>>    */
>> -static bool force_sd_rebuild;			/* RWCS */
>> +static enum {
>> +	SD_NO_REBUILD = 0,
>> +	SD_REBUILD,
>> +	SD_DEFER_REBUILD,
>> +} sd_rebuild;					/* RWCS */
>>   
>>   /*
>>    * Partition root states:
>> @@ -990,7 +994,7 @@ void rebuild_sched_domains_locked(void)
>>   
>>   	lockdep_assert_cpus_held();
>>   	lockdep_assert_cpuset_lock_held();
>> -	force_sd_rebuild = false;
>> +	sd_rebuild = SD_NO_REBUILD;
>>   
>>   	/* Generate domain masks and attrs */
>>   	ndoms = generate_sched_domains(&doms, &attr);
>> @@ -1377,6 +1381,9 @@ static void update_isolation_cpumasks(void)
>>   	else
>>   		isolated_cpus_updating = false;
>>   
> If isolated_hk_cpus is defined, I believe isolated_cpus_updating becomes redundant.
Note that they have different exclusion rules. Other than that, you are 
right that "!cpumask_equal(isolated_hk_cpu, isolated_cpus)" should be 
equivalent to isolated_cpus_updating. But because of the different 
exclusion rules, there are restriction on where you can use one or the 
other.
>
>> +	/* Defer rebuild_sched_domains() to task_work or wq */
>> +	sd_rebuild = SD_DEFER_REBUILD;
>> +
> There is a potential issue: we defer all domain rebuilds here, including those
> triggered by hotplug events which may change the isolation state.
>
> The problem is that functions like cpuset_cpu_active, which rely on the
> scheduler domains being up-to-date—will, also be delayed. Is that okay?

No, we are not deferring all domain rebuilds. We are just deferring 
domain rebuilds that involves changes in the set of isolated CPUs. 
Domains rebuild will still happen if there is no changes in the set of 
isolated CPUs. I need to take a further to investigate if this is a 
problem or not. Anyway s suggested in my reply to Federic, I am 
considering to not changing isolated_cpus due to hotplug events. In that 
case, this problem should be gone.

Cheers,
Longman