[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B85CFD6.6010904@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 09:18:14 +0800
From: Miao Xie <miaox@...fujitsu.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
CC: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, Lee Schermerhorn <lee.schermerhorn@...com>
Subject: Re: [regression] cpuset,mm: update tasks' mems_allowed in time (58568d2)
on 2010-2-25 5:08, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Feb 2010, Miao Xie wrote:
>
>> I think it is not a big deal because it is safe and doesn't cause any problem.
>> Beside that, task->cpus_allowed is initialized to cpu_possible_mask on the no-cpuset
>> kernel, so using cpu_possible_mask to initialize task->cpus_allowed is reasonable.
>> (top cpuset is a special cpuset, isn't it?)
>>
>
> I'm suprised that I can create a descendant cpuset of top_cpuset that
> cannot include all of its parents' cpus and that the root cpuset's cpus
> mask doesn't change when cpus are onlined/offlined.
>
top cpuset's cpus is consistent with cpu_online_mask because the kernel changes it
when doing cpu hotplug. So the problem which you said doesn't exist.
Just cpus_allowed of all tasks in the top cpuset is initialized to cpu_possible_mask
in order to avoid updating them when doing cpu hotplug.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists