[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ur4ukfqtqq5jfmuia4tbvsdz3jn3zk6nx2ok4xtnlxth6ulrql@nmetgsxm3lik>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2025 15:13:26 +0100
From: Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>
To: Waiman Long <llong@...hat.com>
Cc: Sun Shaojie <sunshaojie@...inos.cn>, chenridong@...weicloud.com,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org, hannes@...xchg.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, shuah@...nel.org, tj@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] cpuset: Avoid invalidating sibling partitions on
cpuset.cpus conflict.
On Mon, Nov 24, 2025 at 05:30:47PM -0500, Waiman Long <llong@...hat.com> wrote:
> In the example above, the final configuration is A1:0-1 & B1:1-2. As the cpu
> lists overlap, we can't have both of them as valid partition roots. So
> either one of A1 or B1 is valid or they are both invalid. The current code
> makes them both invalid no matter the operation ordering. This patch will
> make one of them valid given the operation ordering above. To minimize
> partition invalidation, we will have to live with the fact that it will be
> first-come first-serve as noted by Michal. I am not against this, we just
> have to document it. However, the following operation order will still make
> both of them invalid:
I'm skeptical of the FCFS behavior since I'm afraid it may be subject to
race conditions in practice.
BTW should cpuset.cpus and cpuset.cpus.exclusive have different behavior
in this regard?
Thanks,
Michal
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (266 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists