[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <031d83b6-bc67-4941-8c49-e1d12df74062@huaweicloud.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2025 10:01:34 +0800
From: Chen Ridong <chenridong@...weicloud.com>
To: Waiman Long <llong@...hat.com>, tj@...nel.org, hannes@...xchg.org,
mkoutny@...e.com
Cc: cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
lujialin4@...wei.com, chenridong@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next RFC 09/11] cpuset: refactor partition_cpus_change
On 2025/8/30 4:32, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 8/28/25 8:56 AM, Chen Ridong wrote:
>> From: Chen Ridong <chenridong@...wei.com>
>>
>> Refactor the partition_cpus_change function to handle both regular CPU
>> set updates and exclusive CPU modifications, either of which may trigger
>> partition state changes. This generalized function will also be utilized
>> for exclusive CPU updates in subsequent patches.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Chen Ridong <chenridong@...wei.com>
>> ---
>> kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c | 59 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
>> 1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c b/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c
>> index 75ad18ab40ae..e3eb87a33b12 100644
>> --- a/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c
>> +++ b/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c
>> @@ -2447,6 +2447,41 @@ static int acpus_validate_change(struct cpuset *cs, struct cpuset *trialcs,
>> return retval;
>> }
>> +/**
>> + * partition_cpus_change - Handle partition state changes due to CPU mask updates
>> + * @cs: The target cpuset being modified
>> + * @trialcs: The trial cpuset containing proposed configuration changes
>> + * @tmp: Temporary masks for intermediate calculations
>> + *
>> + * This function handles partition state transitions triggered by CPU mask changes.
>> + * CPU modifications may cause a partition to be disabled or require state updates.
>> + */
>> +static void partition_cpus_change(struct cpuset *cs, struct cpuset *trialcs,
>> + struct tmpmasks *tmp)
>> +{
>> + if (cs_is_member(cs))
>> + return;
>> +
>> + invalidate_cs_partition(trialcs);
>> + if (trialcs->prs_err)
>> + cs->prs_err = trialcs->prs_err;
>> +
>> + if (is_remote_partition(cs)) {
>> + if (trialcs->prs_err)
>> + remote_partition_disable(cs, tmp);
>> + else
>> + remote_cpus_update(cs, trialcs->exclusive_cpus,
>> + trialcs->effective_xcpus, tmp);
>> + } else {
>> + if (trialcs->prs_err)
>> + update_parent_effective_cpumask(cs, partcmd_invalidate,
>> + NULL, tmp);
>> + else
>> + update_parent_effective_cpumask(cs, partcmd_update,
>> + trialcs->effective_xcpus, tmp);
>> + }
>> +}
>> +
>> /**
>> * update_cpumask - update the cpus_allowed mask of a cpuset and all tasks in it
>> * @cs: the cpuset to consider
>> @@ -2483,29 +2518,7 @@ static int update_cpumask(struct cpuset *cs, struct cpuset *trialcs,
>> */
>> force = !cpumask_equal(cs->effective_xcpus, trialcs->effective_xcpus);
>> - invalidate_cs_partition(trialcs);
>> - if (trialcs->prs_err)
>> - cs->prs_err = trialcs->prs_err;
>> -
>> - if (is_partition_valid(cs) ||
>> - (is_partition_invalid(cs) && !trialcs->prs_err)) {
>> - struct cpumask *xcpus = trialcs->effective_xcpus;
>> -
>> - if (cpumask_empty(xcpus) && is_partition_invalid(cs))
>> - xcpus = trialcs->cpus_allowed;
>
> This if statement was added in commit 46c521bac592 ("cgroup/cpuset: Enable invalid to valid local
> partition transition") that is missing in your new partition_cpus_change() function. Have you run
> the test_cpuset_prs.sh selftest with a patched kernel to make sure that there is no test failure?
>
> Cheers,
> Longman
Thank you Longman,
I did run the self-test for every patch, and I appreciate the test script test_cpuset_prs.sh you
provided.
The trialcs->effective_xcpus will be updated using compute_trialcs_excpus, which was introduced in
Patch 4. The corresponding logic was then added in Patch 5:
- cpumask_and(excpus, user_xcpus(trialcs), parent->effective_xcpus);
+ /* trialcs is member, cpuset.cpus has no impact to excpus */
+ if (cs_is_member(cs))
+ cpumask_and(excpus, trialcs->exclusive_cpus,
+ parent->effective_xcpus);
+ else
+ cpumask_and(excpus, user_xcpus(trialcs), parent->effective_xcpus);
+
Therefore, as long as excpus is computed correctly, I believe this implementation can handle the
scenario appropriately.
--
Best regards,
Ridong
Powered by blists - more mailing lists