[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YvvZc7KgZT/bRoKl@slm.duckdns.org>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2022 07:52:51 -1000
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
Zefan Li <lizefan.x@...edance.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] cgroup/cpuset: Keep user set cpus affinity
Hello,
On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 01:38:17PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> Yes, a race like this is possible. To completely eliminate the race may
> require taking task_rq_lock() and then calling
> __set_cpus_allowed_ptr_locked() which is internal to kernel/sched/core.c.
>
> Alternatively, we can check user_cpus_ptr again after the scond
> set_cpus_allowed_ptr() and retry it with the other path if set. That will
> probably address your concern. Please let me know if you are OK with that.
I think this would look better if structured the other way around - make the
scheduler side call out to cpuset to query the current restrictions and
apply it atomically.
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists