linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH cgroup/for-6.20 v4 4/5] cgroup/cpuset: Don't invalidate sibling partitions on cpuset.cpus conflict

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: <9a1b7583-7695-484f-a290-807b6db06799@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2026 10:15:17 -0500
From: Waiman Long <llong@...hat.com>
To: Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>,
 Waiman Long <llong@...hat.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
 Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
 Sun Shaojie <sunshaojie@...inos.cn>, Chen Ridong
 <chenridong@...weicloud.com>, Chen Ridong <chenridong@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH cgroup/for-6.20 v4 4/5] cgroup/cpuset: Don't invalidate
 sibling partitions on cpuset.cpus conflict

On 1/12/26 10:08 AM, Michal Koutný wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2026 at 09:51:28AM -0500, Waiman Long <llong@...hat.com> wrote:
>> Sorry, I might have missed this comment of yours. The
>> "cpuset.cpus.exclusive" file lists all the CPUs that can be granted to its
>> children as exclusive CPUs. The cgroup root is an implicit partition root
>> where all its CPUs can be granted to its children whether they are online or
>> offline. "cpuset.cpus.effective" OTOH ignores the offline CPUs as well as
>> exclusive CPUs that have been passed down to existing descendant partition
>> roots so it may differ from the implicit "cpuset.cpus.exclusive".
> Howewer, there's no "cpuset.cpus" configurable nor visible on the root
> cgroup. So possibly drop this hunk altogether for simplicity?

Ah, you are right. I thought there was a read-only copy in cgroup root. 
Will correct that.

Thanks,
Longman