mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "David Hildenbrand (Arm)" <david@kernel.org>
To: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>, Gregory Price <gourry@gourry.net>
Cc: Farhad Alemi <farhad.alemi@berkeley.edu>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Farhad Alemi <falemi@asu.edu>, Yury Norov <ynorov@nvidia.com>,
	Joshua Hahn <joshua.hahnjy@gmail.com>, Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com>,
	Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@intel.com>,
	Rakie Kim <rakie.kim@sk.com>, Byungchul Park <byungchul@sk.com>,
	Ying Huang <ying.huang@linux.alibaba.com>,
	Alistair Popple <apopple@nvidia.com>,
	Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	cgroups@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] cgroup/cpuset: rebind mm mempolicy to effective_mems, not mems_allowed
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2026 10:41:59 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <38578aea-61c3-4328-aee9-8e7421672647@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c61c7925-b9e7-4a6f-82e2-398849ad9f27@redhat.com>

On 6/16/26 17:23, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 6/16/26 2:59 AM, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:
>> On 6/16/26 05:43, Waiman Long wrote:
>>> BTW, I still prefer the v2 patch. If it is decided we should use the
>>> guarantee_online_mems() value instead, it will have to be a separate patch with
>>> changes in the relevant documentation like Documentation/admin-guide/cgroup-v1/
>>> cpuset.rst.
>> newmems is "obviously" correct, so I really don't see why we should add
>> something that needs half a page of text to explain why it is fine -- if newmems
>> just does the trick?
>>
>> Please enlighten me.
> 
> Yes, taking newmems is a reasonable choice and there are pros and cons with each
> options. My focus is more on not changing how v1 cpuset behaves as it is well
> defined in the v1 cpusets.rst file:
> 
>     Requests by a task, using the sched_setaffinity(2) system call to
>     include CPUs in its CPU affinity mask, and using the mbind(2) and
>     set_mempolicy(2) system calls to include Memory Nodes in its memory
>     policy, are both filtered through that task's cpuset, filtering out any
>     CPUs or Memory Nodes not in that cpuset.  The scheduler will not
>     schedule a task on a CPU that is not allowed in its cpus_allowed
>     vector, and the kernel page allocator will not allocate a page on a
>     node that is not allowed in the requesting task's mems_allowed vector.
> 
> v2, OTOH, is more vague as to what setting cpuset.mems will mean and we
> generally follow what v1 is doing, but we have more leeway of what we can do.
> 
> Using newmems will make the above text not totally correct. At least the offline
> memory nodes will be filtered out which will not be utilized by the task when
> the offline node becomes online. That is why I am saying that we will have to
> correct the documentation if we want to make this change.

So IIUC:

diff --git a/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c b/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c
index 1335e437098e..cdfc615f35a5 100644
--- a/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c
+++ b/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c
@@ -2645,7 +2645,13 @@ void cpuset_update_tasks_nodemask(struct cpuset *cs)
 
                migrate = is_memory_migrate(cs);
 
-               mpol_rebind_mm(mm, &cs->mems_allowed);
+               /*
+                * For v1 we can have empty effective_mems, but we cannot
+                * attach any tasks (see cpuset_can_attach_check()). For v2,
+                * it's guaranteed to not be empty.
+                */
+               VM_WARN_ON_ONCE(nodes_empty(cs->effective_mems));
+               mpol_rebind_mm(mm, &cs->effective_mems);
                if (migrate)
                        cpuset_migrate_mm(mm, &cs->old_mems_allowed, &newmems);
                else


-- 
Cheers,

David

  reply	other threads:[~2026-06-18  8:42 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-05-28 19:03 [PATCH] mm: don't allow empty relative nodemask in mpol_relative_nodemask() Yury Norov
2026-05-28 19:37 ` Waiman Long
2026-05-28 19:40   ` Yury Norov
2026-05-28 19:37 ` Matthew Wilcox
2026-05-28 19:41 ` Andrew Morton
2026-05-29 15:26   ` Joshua Hahn
2026-05-29 17:47     ` Yury Norov
2026-05-29 18:40       ` Joshua Hahn
2026-06-01 14:32       ` David Hildenbrand (Arm)
2026-06-02  8:44         ` Gregory Price
2026-06-02  9:19           ` David Hildenbrand (Arm)
2026-06-02  9:54             ` Gregory Price
2026-06-02 15:01               ` Farhad Alemi
2026-06-05 15:18                 ` David Hildenbrand (Arm)
2026-06-09 23:57                   ` [PATCH] cgroup/cpuset: rebind mm mempolicy to effective_mems, not mems_allowed Farhad Alemi
2026-06-10  0:53                     ` Andrew Morton
2026-06-10 11:34                     ` Gregory Price
2026-06-11  2:50                     ` Waiman Long
2026-06-14 13:25                     ` [PATCH v2] " Farhad Alemi
2026-06-15  8:08                       ` David Hildenbrand (Arm)
2026-06-15  9:38                         ` Gregory Price
2026-06-15 11:08                           ` David Hildenbrand (Arm)
2026-06-15 11:19                             ` Gregory Price
2026-06-15 11:39                               ` David Hildenbrand (Arm)
2026-06-16  2:26                           ` Waiman Long
2026-06-16  3:43                             ` Waiman Long
2026-06-16  6:59                               ` David Hildenbrand (Arm)
2026-06-16 13:44                                 ` Gregory Price
2026-06-16 15:27                                   ` Waiman Long
2026-06-16 15:23                                 ` Waiman Long
2026-06-18  8:41                                   ` David Hildenbrand (Arm) [this message]
2026-06-21  3:24                                     ` Waiman Long
2026-06-22  7:12                                       ` David Hildenbrand (Arm)
2026-06-16  3:44                       ` Waiman Long
2026-06-28  6:15                       ` Andrew Morton
2026-06-29  7:27                         ` David Hildenbrand (Arm)
2026-05-29  8:47 ` [PATCH] mm: don't allow empty relative nodemask in mpol_relative_nodemask() kernel test robot
2026-05-29  8:58 ` kernel test robot
2026-05-29 12:45 ` kernel test robot
2026-05-29 12:47 ` kernel test robot
2026-06-01 14:06 ` David Hildenbrand (Arm)

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=38578aea-61c3-4328-aee9-8e7421672647@kernel.org \
    --to=david@kernel.org \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=apopple@nvidia.com \
    --cc=byungchul@sk.com \
    --cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=falemi@asu.edu \
    --cc=farhad.alemi@berkeley.edu \
    --cc=gourry@gourry.net \
    --cc=joshua.hahnjy@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk \
    --cc=longman@redhat.com \
    --cc=matthew.brost@intel.com \
    --cc=rakie.kim@sk.com \
    --cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=ying.huang@linux.alibaba.com \
    --cc=ynorov@nvidia.com \
    --cc=ziy@nvidia.com \
    /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®