mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ridong Chen <ridong.chen@linux.dev>
To: "Waiman Long" <longman@redhat.com>, "Tejun Heo" <tj@kernel.org>,
	"Johannes Weiner" <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
	"Michal Koutný" <mkoutny@suse.com>,
	"Shuah Khan" <shuah@kernel.org>
Cc: Chen Ridong <chenridong@huawei.com>,
	cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, Sashiko <sashiko-bot@kernel.org>,
	Guopeng Zhang <zhangguopeng@kylinos.cn>,
	Ridong Chen <chenridong@xiaomi.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] cpuset: settle isolation state when CPUs are given back to parent
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 2026 18:53:24 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <00c4ec9e-d772-4a2e-a336-aa7076328707@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8efc80ab-3b65-4573-aac4-452bfdbb9a80@redhat.com>



On 11/7/2026 10:28 AM, Waiman Long wrote:
> 
> On 11/6/26 5:55 AM, Ridong Chen wrote:
>> From: Ridong Chen <chenridong@xiaomi.com>
>>
>> partition_xcpus_del() only updates isolated_cpus when the partition that
>> gives back the CPUs has a different state than its parent. CPUs that were
>> further distributed to descendant isolated partitions are not taken into
>> account, so isolated_cpus_release() has to be called afterwards in
>> several places to walk up the ancestors and fix isolated_cpus.
>>
>> Make partition_xcpus_del() always set the isolation state of the given
>> back CPUs to the state of the parent that receives them. As the
>> effective_xcpus of a partition covers the CPUs distributed to its
>> descendants, the isolation state of those CPUs is settled at the same
>> time. Boot-time isolated CPUs are still preserved by isolated_cpu_update().
>>
>> compute_partition_effective_cpumask() invalidates a child partition
>> without going through partition_xcpus_del(), so do the same there: the
>> CPUs of the invalidated child take the isolation state of its parent.
>>
>> As the parent may be shrunk and its effective_xcpus not updated yet,
>> only do so for the CPUs the parent still owns. This is to keep the
>> isolation state correct for now, the in-place invalidation here will be
>> removed later in the partition rework.
>>
>> isolated_cpus_release() is no longer needed and is removed.
>>
>> Acked-by: Guopeng Zhang <zhangguopeng@kylinos.cn>
>> Signed-off-by: Ridong Chen <chenridong@xiaomi.com>
>> ---
>>   kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c | 86 +++++++++++-------------------------------
>>   1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 63 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c b/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c
>> index 85e5b529d144..a5ab9396eb61 100644
>> --- a/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c
>> +++ b/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c
>> @@ -1264,42 +1264,21 @@ static void isolated_cpus_update(int old_prs, int 
>> new_prs, struct cpumask *xcpus
>>   }
>>   /*
>> - * isolated_cpus_release - Remove the relevant CPUs in @xcpus from isolated_cpus
>> - * @cs: the current cpuset
>> - * @xcpus: the set of effective xcpus to be considered for removal
>> - *
>> - * This function is called when an isolated partition is invalidated or when
>> - * some of its effective xcpus are to be removed from isolated_cpus due to
>> - * changes in parent cpuset. The given @xcpus must be modifiable as the function
>> - * will update its value to determine the right set of CPUs to be removed.
>> + * isolated_cpus_set_state - Set the isolation state of @xcpus
>> + * @prs: partition root state that @xcpus will belong to
>> + * @xcpus: exclusive CPUs whose isolation state may change
>>    */
>> -static void isolated_cpus_release(struct cpuset *cs, struct cpumask *xcpus)
>> +static void isolated_cpus_set_state(int prs, struct cpumask *xcpus)
>>   {
>> -    struct cpuset *ancestor = parent_cs(cs);
>> -    struct cpuset *iancestor = NULL;
>> -
>> -    /*
>> -     * Search the furthest isolated partition root ancestor available
>> -     * until top_cpuset or a remote partition root is hit.
>> -     */
>> -    for (; ancestor; ancestor = parent_cs(ancestor)) {
>> -        if (ancestor->partition_root_state == PRS_ISOLATED)
>> -            iancestor = ancestor;
>> -        if (is_remote_partition(ancestor))
>> -            break;
>> -    }
>> -
>> -    /*
>> -     * If a furthest isolated partition acnestor is found, use it to
>> -     * determine which of the CPUs in @xcpus should be removed from
>> -     * isolated_cpus. Otherwise, all of them will be removed.
>> -     */
>> -    if (iancestor && !cpumask_andnot(xcpus, xcpus, iancestor->effective_xcpus))
>> -        return; /* No CPU should be removed from isolated_cpus */
>> +    bool updated = false;
>> +    int cpu;
>> -    spin_lock_irq(&callback_lock);
>> -    isolated_cpus_update(PRS_ISOLATED, PRS_ROOT, xcpus);
>> -    spin_unlock_irq(&callback_lock);
>> +    lockdep_assert_held(&callback_lock);
>> +    lockdep_assert_held(&cpuset_mutex);
>> +    for_each_cpu(cpu, xcpus)
>> +        updated |= isolated_cpu_update(prs, cpu);
>> +    if (updated)
>> +        update_housekeeping = true;
>>   }
> 
> isolated_cpus_set_state() is almost the same as isolated_cpus_update(). 
> isolated_cpus_update() just assumes that parent and child prs state should be 
> different. You are right that we should proceed no matter if the parent and 
> child has the same state or not. So you should consider merging these two 
> functions as well.
> 

Hi Longman,

Thanks for the review. You're right, these two functions should be merged.

I didn't touch partition_xcpus_add() because the rework never hit a
problem there, so I added isolated_cpus_set_state() instead of changing
isolated_cpus_update(). However, that's not the right approach;

In the next version, I'll drop the @old_prs argument and the
WARN_ON_ONCE() from isolated_cpus_update(), use it everywhere, and
remove isolated_cpus_set_state(). The state check in
partition_xcpus_add() will go away too, since updating CPUs that are
already in the right state is a no-op.

> 
>>   /*
>> @@ -1355,9 +1334,8 @@ static void partition_xcpus_del(int old_prs, struct 
>> cpuset *parent,
>>       if (parent == &top_cpuset)
>>           cpumask_andnot(subpartitions_cpus, subpartitions_cpus, xcpus);
>> -    if (old_prs != parent->partition_root_state)
>> -        isolated_cpus_update(old_prs, parent->partition_root_state,
>> -                     xcpus);
>> +    /* CPUs given back, including those of descendants, take parent's state */
>> +    isolated_cpus_set_state(parent->partition_root_state, xcpus);
>>       cpumask_or(parent->effective_cpus, parent->effective_cpus, xcpus);
>>       cpumask_and(parent->effective_cpus, parent->effective_cpus, 
>> cpu_active_mask);
>> @@ -1612,6 +1590,7 @@ static void compute_partition_effective_cpumask(struct 
>> cpuset *cs,
>>       struct cgroup_subsys_state *css;
>>       struct cpuset *child;
>>       bool populated = partition_is_populated(cs, NULL);
>> +    static cpumask_t xcpus;        /* Protected by cpuset_mutex */
>>       /*
>>        * Check child partition roots to see if they should be invalidated
>> @@ -1640,14 +1619,15 @@ static void compute_partition_effective_cpumask(struct 
>> cpuset *cs,
>>               int parent_prs = cs->partition_root_state;
>>               /*
>> -             * Invalidate child partition and update isolated_cpus
>> -             * if necessary.
>> +             * Invalidate child partition. Its CPUs still owned by
>> +             * cs take the isolation state of cs. effective_xcpus
>> +             * of cs may not be updated yet, so recompute it.
>>                */
>>               spin_lock_irq(&callback_lock);
>>               WRITE_ONCE(child->prs_err, PERR_NOCPUS);
>> -            if ((old_prs == PRS_ISOLATED) && (parent_prs == PRS_ROOT))
>> -                isolated_cpus_update(PRS_ISOLATED, PRS_ROOT,
>> -                             child->effective_xcpus);
>> +            compute_excpus(cs, &xcpus);
>> +            cpumask_and(&xcpus, &xcpus, child->effective_xcpus);
>> +            isolated_cpus_set_state(parent_prs, &xcpus);
>>               child->partition_root_state = -old_prs;
>>               spin_unlock_irq(&callback_lock);
>>               notify_partition_change(child, old_prs);
>> @@ -2080,22 +2060,8 @@ static int update_parent_effective_cpumask(struct 
>> cpuset *cs, int cmd,
>>            *
>>            * A partition error happens when parent has tasks and all
>>            * its effective CPUs will have to be distributed out.
>> -         *
>> -         * For an isolated partition with a shrunk root partition parent
>> -         * we may need to return some or all of its isolated CPUs.
>>            */
>>           nocpu |= cpumask_empty(tmp->delmask);
>> -        if ((parent_prs == PRS_ROOT) && (old_prs == PRS_ISOLATED)) {
>> -            cpumask_clear(tmp->addmask);
>> -            if (nocpu)
>> -                cpumask_copy(tmp->addmask, cs->effective_xcpus);
>> -            else if (!cpumask_subset(cs->effective_xcpus, parent- 
>> >effective_xcpus))
>> -                cpumask_andnot(tmp->addmask, cs->effective_xcpus,
>> -                                 parent->effective_xcpus);
>> -            if (!cpumask_empty(tmp->addmask))
>> -                isolated_cpus_release(cs, tmp->addmask);
>> -            /* Expansion of parent's effective_xcpus is handled below */
>> -        }
>>           if (nocpu) {
>>               part_error = PERR_NOCPUS;
>>               if (is_partition_valid(cs))
>> @@ -2341,18 +2307,12 @@ static void update_cpumasks_hier(struct cpuset *cs, 
>> struct tmpmasks *tmp,
>>                   /*
>>                    * When parent is not a valid partition root,
>>                    * child partition roots become invalid too.
>> -                 *
>> -                 * For a to be invalidated isolated partition,
>> -                 * call return_isolated_cpus() to remove the
>> -                 * relevant CPUs from isolated_cpus.
>> +                 * The isolation state of their CPUs has been
>> +                 * settled when the parent gave them back.
>>                    */
>>                   if (is_partition_valid(cp))
>>                       new_prs = -old_prs;
>> -                if (old_prs == PRS_ISOLATED) {
>> -                    cpumask_copy(tmp->delmask, cp->effective_xcpus);
>> -                    isolated_cpus_release(cp, tmp->delmask);
>> -                }
>>                   WRITE_ONCE(cp->prs_err,
>>                          is_partition_invalid(parent)
>>                          ? PERR_INVPARENT : PERR_NOTPART);
> 

-- 
Best regards
Ridong


  reply	other threads:[~2026-11-07 10:53 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-11-06 10:55 [PATCH v2 0/4] cpuset: preparatory fixes and cleanups for partition rework Ridong Chen
2026-11-06 10:55 ` [PATCH v2 1/4] cgroup/cpuset: Reset partition data when an invalid partition stays invalid Ridong Chen
2026-11-06 19:10   ` Waiman Long
2026-11-06 10:55 ` [PATCH v2 2/4] cpuset: add early empty cpumask check in partition_xcpus_add/del Ridong Chen
2026-11-07  2:21   ` Waiman Long
2026-11-06 10:55 ` [PATCH v2 3/4] cpuset: settle isolation state when CPUs are given back to parent Ridong Chen
2026-11-07  2:28   ` Waiman Long
2026-11-07 10:53     ` Ridong Chen [this message]
2026-11-06 10:55 ` [PATCH v2 4/4] cpuset: generalize the validate_partition() interface Ridong Chen
2026-11-07  3:59   ` Waiman Long
2026-11-07 11:01     ` Ridong Chen

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=00c4ec9e-d772-4a2e-a336-aa7076328707@linux.dev \
    --to=ridong.chen@linux.dev \
    --cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=chenridong@huawei.com \
    --cc=chenridong@xiaomi.com \
    --cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=longman@redhat.com \
    --cc=mkoutny@suse.com \
    --cc=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
    --cc=shuah@kernel.org \
    --cc=tj@kernel.org \
    --cc=zhangguopeng@kylinos.cn \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®