linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC v2 13/22] cpuset: introduce local_partition

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <3b3b49df-c215-4f7d-b2c6-628eac823134@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2025 21:06:51 -0500
From: Waiman Long <llong@...hat.com>
To: Chen Ridong <chenridong@...weicloud.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 RFC v2 13/22] cpuset: introduce local_partition_update()

On 10/25/25 2:48 AM, Chen Ridong wrote:
> From: Chen Ridong <chenridong@...wei.com>
>
> The local_partition_update() function replaces the command partcmd_update
> previously handled within update_parent_effective_cpumask(). The update
> logic follows a state-based approach:
>
> 1. Validation check: First verify if the local partition is currently valid
> 2. Invalidation handling: If the partition is invalid, trigger invalidation
> 3. State transition: If an invalid partition has no errors, transition to
>     valid
> 4. cpumasks updates: For local partition that only cpu maks changes, use
"cpumask"
>     partition_update() to handle partition change.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chen Ridong <chenridong@...wei.com>
> ---
>   kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c | 153 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>   1 file changed, 148 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c b/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c
> index 73a43ab58f72..49df38237c1d 100644
> --- a/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c
> +++ b/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c
> @@ -1822,6 +1822,59 @@ static void remote_cpus_update(struct cpuset *cs, struct cpumask *xcpus,
>   	remote_partition_disable(cs, tmp);
>   }
>   
> +static bool is_user_cpus_exclusive(struct cpuset *cs)

Should we name this "is_user_xcpus_exclusive"?

Cheers,
Longman