Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 2 Feb 2023 19:54:26 -0500 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] cpuset: Fix cpuset_cpus_allowed() to not filter offline CPUs | From | Waiman Long <> |
| |
On 2/2/23 16:50, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Thu, Feb 02, 2023 at 04:05:14PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote: >> On 2/2/23 15:53, Waiman Long wrote: >>> On 2/2/23 15:48, Tejun Heo wrote: >>>> On Thu, Feb 02, 2023 at 03:46:02PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote: >>>>>>> I will work on a patchset to do that as a counter offer. >>>>>> We will need a small and simple patch for /urgent, or I will need to >>>>>> revert all your patches -- your call. >>>>>> >>>>>> I also don't tihnk you fully appreciate the ramifications of >>>>>> task_cpu_possible_mask(), cpuset currently gets that quite wrong. >>>>> OK, I don't realize the urgency of that. If it is that urgent, I >>>>> will have >>>>> no objection to get it in for now. We can improve it later on. >>>>> So are you >>>>> planning to get it into the current 6.2 rc or 6.3? >>>>> >>>>> Tejun, are you OK with that as you are the cgroup maintainer? >>>> Yeah, gotta fix the regression but is there currently a solution >>>> which fixes >>>> the regression but doesn't further break other stuff? >>> I believe there is a better way to do that, but it will need more time >>> to flex out. Since cpuset_cpus_allowed() is only used by >>> kernel/sched/core.c, Peter will be responsible if it somehow breaks >>> other stuff. >> Maybe my cpuset patch that don't update task's cpumask on cpu offline event >> can help. However, I don't know the exact scenario where the regression >> happen, so it may not. > Neither patch looks like they would break anything. That said, the patches > aren't trivial and we're really close to the merge window, so I'd really > appreciate if you can take a look and test a bit before we send these > Linus's way. We can replace it with a better solution afterwards.
OK, will do.
Cheers, Longman
| |