[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5171EA24.3070001@huawei.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 09:06:44 +0800
From: Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
CC: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/10] cpuset: don't update tasks' cpumask and nodemask
in an empty cpuset
On 2013/4/20 2:36, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Li.
>
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 08:27:05PM +0800, Li Zefan wrote:
>> I think this was introduced unintentionally when cpuset hotplug was
>> made asynchronous. Fortunately it does no harm, as updating tasks'
>> cpumask will just return failure and there's a guarantee_online_mems()
>> when updating nodemask, and then the tasks will be moved to an ancestor
>> cpuset.
>
> Yeah, which will update the masks to the proper values anyway, so it
> was intentionally written that way as it didn't really matter either
> way. I suppose this helps future changes? Maybe update the
> description a bit?
>
I was trying to fix a bug: before moving tasks out of empty cpusets,
update_tasks_nodemask() is called, which calls do_migrate_pages(xx, from, to)
finally, from == node_to_be_offlined, to == empty_nodeamsk, so I guess
no pages will be migrated.
Then when those tasks are moving to an ancestor, do_migrate_pages(xx, from, to)
is called again, from == empty_nodemask, to == ancestor's nodemask,
so I guess again no pages will be migrated.
This bug exists even before your changes.
--
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