[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <67d72bc7-a277-9210-6f40-d3d94f2643a0@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2023 09:25:05 -0400
From: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To: Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
Zefan Li <lizefan.x@...edance.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] cpuset: Allow setscheduler regardless of manipulated
task
On 6/29/23 08:26, Michal Koutný wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 08:11:33AM -0400, Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com> wrote:
>> So I think you should just use
>> cgroup_subsys_on_dfl(cpuset_cgrp_subsys) as the v2 check if your focus
>> is just to prevent problem when enabling cpuset controller.
> I thought the bare cgroup_subsys_on_dfl(cpuset_cgrp_subsys) is not used
> in cpuset.c but I was wrong -- yes, I'll change this.
>
>> This change will likely conflict with the latest cpuset change on tracking #
>> of dl tasks in a cpuset. You will have to, at least, move the dl task check
>> before the security_task_setscheduler() check.
>>
>> Another fact about cpuset controller enabling is that both cpus_allowed and
>> mems_allowed are empty at that point. You may also add these checks as a
>> preconditions for disabling the security_task_setscheduler check.
> Ah, I will rebase on fresh mainline (or do you mean another reference?).
Yes, those changes have just been merged into the mainline.
Cheers,
Longman
Powered by blists - more mailing lists