[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <184216d6-9fae-4e73-94b8-ed1d2746a5a5@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2026 15:22:52 -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
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] cpuset: fix overlap of partition effective CPUs
On 1/29/26 1:45 AM, Chen Ridong wrote:
> From: Chen Ridong <chenridong@...wei.com>
>
> A warning was detect:
>
> WARNING: kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c:825 at rebuild_sched_domains_locked
> Modules linked in:
> CPU: 12 UID: 0 PID: 681 Comm: rmdir 6.19.0-rc6-next-20260121+
> RIP: 0010:rebuild_sched_domains_locked+0x309/0x4b0
> RSP: 0018:ffffc900019bbd28 EFLAGS: 00000202
> RAX: ffff888104413508 RBX: 0000000000000008 RCX: ffff888104413510
> RDX: ffff888109b5f400 RSI: 000000000000ffcf RDI: 0000000000000001
> RBP: 0000000000000002 R08: ffff888104413508 R09: 0000000000000002
> R10: ffff888104413508 R11: 0000000000000001 R12: ffff888104413500
> R13: 0000000000000002 R14: ffffc900019bbd78 R15: 0000000000000000
> FS: 00007fe274b8d740(0000) GS:ffff8881b6b3c000(0000) knlGS:
> CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
> CR2: 00007fe274c98b50 CR3: 00000001047a9000 CR4: 00000000000006f0
> Call Trace:
> <TASK>
> update_prstate+0x1c7/0x580
> cpuset_css_killed+0x2f/0x50
> kill_css+0x32/0x180
> cgroup_destroy_locked+0xa7/0x200
> cgroup_rmdir+0x28/0x100
> kernfs_iop_rmdir+0x4c/0x80
> vfs_rmdir+0x12c/0x280
> filename_rmdir+0x19e/0x200
> __x64_sys_rmdir+0x23/0x40
> do_syscall_64+0x6b/0x390
>
> It can be reproduced by steps:
>
> # cd /sys/fs/cgroup/
> # mkdir A1
> # mkdir B1
> # mkdir C1
> # echo 1-3 > A1/cpuset.cpus
> # echo root > A1/cpuset.cpus.partition
> # echo 3-5 > B1/cpuset.cpus
> # echo root > B1/cpuset.cpus.partition
> # echo 6 > C1/cpuset.cpus
> # echo root > C1/cpuset.cpus.partition
> # rmdir A1/
> # rmdir C1/
>
> Both A1 and B1 were initially configured with CPU 3, which was exclusively
> assigned to A1's partition. When A1 was removed, CPU 3 was returned to the
> root pool. However, B1 incorrectly regained access to CPU 3 when
> update_cpumasks_hier was triggered during C1's removal, which also updated
> sibling configurations.
>
> The update_sibling_cpumasks function was called to synchronize siblings'
> effective CPUs due to changes in their parent's effective CPUs. However,
> parent effective CPU changes should not affect partition-effective CPUs.
>
> To fix this issue, update_cpumasks_hier should only be invoked when the
> sibling is not a valid partition in the update_sibling_cpumasks.
>
> Fixes: 2a3602030d80 ("cgroup/cpuset: Don't invalidate sibling partitions on cpuset.cpus conflict")
> Signed-off-by: Chen Ridong <chenridong@...wei.com>
> ---
> kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c | 19 ++++++-------------
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c b/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c
> index cf67d3524c75..31ba74044155 100644
> --- a/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c
> +++ b/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c
> @@ -2227,27 +2227,20 @@ static void update_sibling_cpumasks(struct cpuset *parent, struct cpuset *cs,
> * It is possible a change in parent's effective_cpus
> * due to a change in a child partition's effective_xcpus will impact
> * its siblings even if they do not inherit parent's effective_cpus
> - * directly.
> + * directly. It should not impact valid partition.
> *
> * The update_cpumasks_hier() function may sleep. So we have to
> * release the RCU read lock before calling it.
> */
> rcu_read_lock();
> cpuset_for_each_child(sibling, pos_css, parent) {
> - if (sibling == cs)
> + if (sibling == cs || is_partition_valid(sibling))
> continue;
> - if (!is_partition_valid(sibling)) {
> - compute_effective_cpumask(tmp->new_cpus, sibling,
> - parent);
> - if (cpumask_equal(tmp->new_cpus, sibling->effective_cpus))
> - continue;
> - } else if (is_remote_partition(sibling)) {
> - /*
> - * Change in a sibling cpuset won't affect a remote
> - * partition root.
> - */
> +
> + compute_effective_cpumask(tmp->new_cpus, sibling,
> + parent);
> + if (cpumask_equal(tmp->new_cpus, sibling->effective_cpus))
> continue;
> - }
>
> if (!css_tryget_online(&sibling->css))
> continue;
Thanks for fixing this.
Reviewed-by: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists