From: Waiman Long <llong@redhat.com>
To: "Chen Ridong" <chenridong@huaweicloud.com>,
"Tejun Heo" <tj@kernel.org>,
"Johannes Weiner" <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
"Michal Koutný" <mkoutny@suse.com>,
"Shuah Khan" <shuah@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
Sun Shaojie <sunshaojie@kylinos.cn>
Subject: Re: [cgroup/for-6.20 PATCH 3/4] cgroup/cpuset: Don't fail cpuset.cpus change in v2
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2025 02:42:32 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <471d1be6-db23-42b2-a5e8-5207fb4dcaeb@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <dc9cd447-6431-46f6-b93d-fd2e317aa630@huaweicloud.com>
On 12/25/25 4:30 AM, Chen Ridong wrote:
>
> On 2025/12/25 15:30, Waiman Long wrote:
>> Commit fe8cd2736e75 ("cgroup/cpuset: Delay setting of CS_CPU_EXCLUSIVE
>> until valid partition") introduced a new check to disallow the setting
>> of a new cpuset.cpus.exclusive value that is a superset of a sibling's
>> cpuset.cpus value so that there will at least be one CPU left in the
>> sibling in case the cpuset becomes a valid partition root. This new
>> check does have the side effect of failing a cpuset.cpus change that
>> make it a subset of a sibling's cpuset.cpus.exclusive value.
>>
>> With v2, users are supposed to be allowed to set whatever value they
>> want in cpuset.cpus without failure. To maintain this rule, the check
>> is now restricted to only when cpuset.cpus.exclusive is being changed
>> not when cpuset.cpus is changed.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
>> ---
>> kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c | 30 +++++++++++++++---------------
>> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c b/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c
>> index 850334dbc36a..83bf6b588e5f 100644
>> --- a/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c
>> +++ b/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c
>> @@ -609,33 +609,31 @@ static inline bool cpusets_are_exclusive(struct cpuset *cs1, struct cpuset *cs2)
>>
>> /**
>> * cpus_excl_conflict - Check if two cpusets have exclusive CPU conflicts
>> - * @cs1: first cpuset to check
>> - * @cs2: second cpuset to check
>> + * @trial: the trial cpuset to be checked
>> + * @sibling: a sibling cpuset to be checked against
>> + * @new_xcpus: new exclusive_cpus in trial cpuset
>> *
> Can we rename it to xcpus_changed?
>
> The current name new_xcpus gives me the impression that CPUs are being added.
> For example: if exclusive_cpus is 1, and it changes to 1-7, then new_xcpus would be 2-7.
Sure. I will make the change in the next version.
Cheers,
Longman
>
>> * Returns: true if CPU exclusivity conflict exists, false otherwise
>> *
>> * Conflict detection rules:
>> * 1. If either cpuset is CPU exclusive, they must be mutually exclusive
>> * 2. exclusive_cpus masks cannot intersect between cpusets
>> - * 3. The allowed CPUs of one cpuset cannot be a subset of another's exclusive CPUs
>> + * 3. The allowed CPUs of a sibling cpuset cannot be a subset of the new exclusive CPUs
>> */
>> -static inline bool cpus_excl_conflict(struct cpuset *cs1, struct cpuset *cs2)
>> +static inline bool cpus_excl_conflict(struct cpuset *trial, struct cpuset *sibling,
>> + bool new_xcpus)
>> {
>> /* If either cpuset is exclusive, check if they are mutually exclusive */
>> - if (is_cpu_exclusive(cs1) || is_cpu_exclusive(cs2))
>> - return !cpusets_are_exclusive(cs1, cs2);
>> + if (is_cpu_exclusive(trial) || is_cpu_exclusive(sibling))
>> + return !cpusets_are_exclusive(trial, sibling);
>>
>> /* Exclusive_cpus cannot intersect */
>> - if (cpumask_intersects(cs1->exclusive_cpus, cs2->exclusive_cpus))
>> + if (cpumask_intersects(trial->exclusive_cpus, sibling->exclusive_cpus))
>> return true;
>>
>> - /* The cpus_allowed of one cpuset cannot be a subset of another cpuset's exclusive_cpus */
>> - if (!cpumask_empty(cs1->cpus_allowed) &&
>> - cpumask_subset(cs1->cpus_allowed, cs2->exclusive_cpus))
>> - return true;
>> -
>> - if (!cpumask_empty(cs2->cpus_allowed) &&
>> - cpumask_subset(cs2->cpus_allowed, cs1->exclusive_cpus))
>> + /* The cpus_allowed of a sibling cpuset cannot be a subset of the new exclusive_cpus */
>> + if (new_xcpus && !cpumask_empty(sibling->cpus_allowed) &&
>> + cpumask_subset(sibling->cpus_allowed, trial->exclusive_cpus))
>> return true;
>>
>> return false;
>> @@ -672,6 +670,7 @@ static int validate_change(struct cpuset *cur, struct cpuset *trial)
>> {
>> struct cgroup_subsys_state *css;
>> struct cpuset *c, *par;
>> + bool new_xcpus;
>> int ret = 0;
>>
>> rcu_read_lock();
>> @@ -728,10 +727,11 @@ static int validate_change(struct cpuset *cur, struct cpuset *trial)
>> * overlap. exclusive_cpus cannot overlap with each other if set.
>> */
>> ret = -EINVAL;
>> + new_xcpus = !cpumask_equal(cur->exclusive_cpus, trial->exclusive_cpus);
>> cpuset_for_each_child(c, css, par) {
>> if (c == cur)
>> continue;
>> - if (cpus_excl_conflict(trial, c))
>> + if (cpus_excl_conflict(trial, c, new_xcpus))
>> goto out;
>> if (mems_excl_conflict(trial, c))
>> goto out;
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-12-27 7:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-12-25 7:30 [cgroup/for-6.20 PATCH 0/4] cgroup/cpuset: Don't invalidate sibling partitions on cpuset.cpus conflict Waiman Long
2025-12-25 7:30 ` [cgroup/for-6.20 PATCH 1/4] cgroup/cpuset: Streamline rm_siblings_excl_cpus() Waiman Long
2025-12-25 9:27 ` Chen Ridong
2025-12-27 7:40 ` Waiman Long
2025-12-27 10:14 ` Chen Ridong
2025-12-25 7:30 ` [cgroup/for-6.20 PATCH 2/4] cgroup/cpuset: Consistently compute effective_xcpus in update_cpumasks_hier() Waiman Long
2025-12-27 10:10 ` Chen Ridong
2025-12-25 7:30 ` [cgroup/for-6.20 PATCH 3/4] cgroup/cpuset: Don't fail cpuset.cpus change in v2 Waiman Long
2025-12-25 9:30 ` Chen Ridong
2025-12-27 7:42 ` Waiman Long [this message]
2025-12-25 11:54 ` Chen Ridong
2025-12-27 8:03 ` Waiman Long
2025-12-25 7:30 ` [cgroup/for-6.20 PATCH 4/4] cgroup/cpuset: Don't invalidate sibling partitions on cpuset.cpus conflict Waiman Long
2025-12-29 12:42 ` [cgroup/for-6.20 PATCH 0/4] " Sun Shaojie
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=471d1be6-db23-42b2-a5e8-5207fb4dcaeb@redhat.com \
--to=llong@redhat.com \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=chenridong@huaweicloud.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mkoutny@suse.com \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
--cc=sunshaojie@kylinos.cn \
--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