[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZWYbqNnnt6gQOssK@slm.duckdns.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2023 06:56:08 -1000
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cc: Zefan Li <lizefan.x@...edance.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Mrunal Patel <mpatel@...hat.com>,
Ryan Phillips <rphillips@...hat.com>,
Brent Rowsell <browsell@...hat.com>,
Peter Hunt <pehunt@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH-cgroup 2/2] cgroup/cpuset: Include isolated cpuset CPUs
in cpu_is_isolated() check
Hello,
On Sun, Nov 26, 2023 at 11:19:56PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> +bool cpuset_cpu_is_isolated(int cpu)
> +{
> + unsigned int seq;
> + bool ret;
> +
> + do {
> + seq = read_seqcount_begin(&isolcpus_seq);
> + ret = cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, isolated_cpus);
> + } while (read_seqcount_retry(&isolcpus_seq, seq));
> + return ret;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(cpuset_cpu_is_isolated);
We're testing a bit in a bitmask. I don't think we need to worry about value
integrity from RMW updates being broken up. ie. We can just test the bit
without seqlock and drop the first patch?
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists