linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] cgroup/cpuset: Don't filter offline CPUs in cpuset_cpus

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 7 Feb 2023 11:32:29 +0000
From:   Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
To:     Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:     Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Zefan Li <lizefan.x@...edance.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cgroup/cpuset: Don't filter offline CPUs in
 cpuset_cpus_allowed() for top cpuset tasks

On Mon, Feb 06, 2023 at 10:17:05AM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 06, 2023 at 11:05:41AM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > If we want to get it into the next merge windows, there isn't much time left
> > > for linux-next testing. So a lower risk solution is better from that
> > > perspective too.
> > 
> > This needs to land for 6.2 to fix the regression. The next merge window is
> > too late. That's why I cooked the reverts [1] as an alternative.
> 
> Yeah, I think Waiman meant before the coming merge window. We have at least
> one more week so let's try the two patches and see how that goes. We can
> always revert if it doesn't work out.

I see this has landed in Linus' tree now, so thanks for that! I also tested
his branch just to make sure and it all seems fine in my asymmetric
environment.

Cheers,

Will