Re: [cgroup/for-6.20 PATCH v2 2/4] cgroup/cpuset: Consistently compute effective_xcpus in update_cpumasks_hier()

[Waiman Long <llong@redhat.com>]

On 1/4/26 10:58 PM, Chen Ridong wrote:
>
> On 2026/1/5 11:50, Waiman Long wrote:
>> On 1/4/26 8:15 PM, Chen Ridong wrote:
>>> On 2026/1/5 5:25, Waiman Long wrote:
>>>> On 1/3/26 9:48 PM, Chen Ridong wrote:
>>>>> On 2026/1/2 3:15, Waiman Long wrote:
>>>>>> Since commit f62a5d39368e ("cgroup/cpuset: Remove remote_partition_check()
>>>>>> & make update_cpumasks_hier() handle remote partition"), the
>>>>>> compute_effective_exclusive_cpumask() helper was extended to
>>>>>> strip exclusive CPUs from siblings when computing effective_xcpus
>>>>>> (cpuset.cpus.exclusive.effective). This helper was later renamed to
>>>>>> compute_excpus() in commit 86bbbd1f33ab ("cpuset: Refactor exclusive
>>>>>> CPU mask computation logic").
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This helper is supposed to be used consistently to compute
>>>>>> effective_xcpus. However, there is an exception within the callback
>>>>>> critical section in update_cpumasks_hier() when exclusive_cpus of a
>>>>>> valid partition root is empty. This can cause effective_xcpus value to
>>>>>> differ depending on where exactly it is last computed. Fix this by using
>>>>>> compute_excpus() in this case to give a consistent result.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>     kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c | 14 +++++---------
>>>>>>     1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c b/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c
>>>>>> index da2b3b51630e..37d118a9ad4d 100644
>>>>>> --- a/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c
>>>>>> +++ b/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c
>>>>>> @@ -2168,17 +2168,13 @@ static void update_cpumasks_hier(struct cpuset *cs, struct tmpmasks *tmp,
>>>>>>             spin_lock_irq(&callback_lock);
>>>>>>             cpumask_copy(cp->effective_cpus, tmp->new_cpus);
>>>>>>             cp->partition_root_state = new_prs;
>>>>>> -        if (!cpumask_empty(cp->exclusive_cpus) && (cp != cs))
>>>>>> -            compute_excpus(cp, cp->effective_xcpus);
>>>>>> -
>>>>>>             /*
>>>>>> -         * Make sure effective_xcpus is properly set for a valid
>>>>>> -         * partition root.
>>>>>> +         * Need to compute effective_xcpus if either exclusive_cpus
>>>>>> +         * is non-empty or it is a valid partition root.
>>>>>>              */
>>>>>> -        if ((new_prs > 0) && cpumask_empty(cp->exclusive_cpus))
>>>>>> -            cpumask_and(cp->effective_xcpus,
>>>>>> -                    cp->cpus_allowed, parent->effective_xcpus);
>>>>>> -        else if (new_prs < 0)
>>>>>> +        if ((new_prs > 0) || !cpumask_empty(cp->exclusive_cpus))
>>>>>> +            compute_excpus(cp, cp->effective_xcpus);
>>>>>> +        if (new_prs < 0)
>>>>>>                 reset_partition_data(cp);
>>>>>>             spin_unlock_irq(&callback_lock);
>>>>>>     
>>>>> The code resets partition data only for new_prs < 0. My understanding is that a partition is
>>>>> invalid
>>>>> when new_prs <= 0. Shouldn't reset_partition_data() also be called when new_prs = 0? Is there a
>>>>> specific reason to skip the reset in that case?
>>>> update_cpumasks_hier() is called when changes in a cpuset or hotplug affects other cpusets in the
>>>> hierarchy. With respect to changes in partition state, it is either from valid to invalid or vice
>>>> versa. It will not change from a valid partition to member. The only way new_prs = 0 is when old_prs
>>>> = 0. Even if the affected cpuset is processed again in update_cpumask_hier(), any state change from
>>>> valid partition to member (update_prstate()), reset_partition_data() should have been called there.
>>>> That is why we only care about when new_prs != 0.
>>>>
>>> Thank you for your patience.
>>>
>>>> The code isn't wrong here. However I can change the condition to (new_prs <= 0) if it makes it
>>>> easier to understand.
>>>>
>>> I agree there's nothing wrong with the current logic. However, for clarity, I suggest changing the
>>> condition to (new_prs <= 0). This allows the function's logic to be fully self-consistent and
>>> focused on a single responsibility. This approach would allow us to simplify the code to:
>>>
>>>      if (new_prs > 0)
>>>          compute_excpus(cp, cp->effective_xcpus);
>>>      else
>>>          reset_partition_data(cp);
>>>
>>> Since reset_partition_data() already handles cases whether cp->exclusive_cpus is empty or not, this
>>> implementation would be more concise while correctly covering all scenarios.
>> effective_xcpus should be set when exclusive_cpus is not empty or when the cpuset is a valid
>> partition root. So just checking new_prs for compute_excpus() is not enough.
>>
> If we change the condition to (new_prs <= 0), it will reset the partition data even when we call
> compute_excpus (for !cpumask_empty(cp->exclusive_cpus)), so we should still get the same result, right?

Changing the condition to (new_prs <= 0) won't affect the result except 
for a bit of wasted cpu cycles. That is why I am planning to make the 
change in the next version to make it easier to understand.

Cheers,
Longman