[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <494c63e6-4887-4bee-989d-8a9efda7f2c7@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2026 13:08:58 -0500
From: Waiman Long <llong@...hat.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Chen Ridong <chenridong@...weicloud.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, Michal Koutný
<mkoutny@...e.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@...utronix.de>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH/for-next 1/2] cgroup/cpuset: Defer housekeeping_update()
call from CPU hotplug to task_work
On 1/28/26 12:44 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2026 at 11:42:50PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
>> +static void isolation_task_work_fn(struct callback_head *cb)
>> +{
>> + cpuset_full_lock();
>> + __update_isolation_cpumasks(true);
>> + cpuset_full_lock();
> ^
> unlock?
>
> Thanks.
>
Sorry about that, will fix it. That change was removed in the 2nd patch.
That is why the series still worked as expected.
Thanks,
Longman
Powered by blists - more mailing lists