From: Guopeng Zhang <guopeng.zhang@linux.dev>
To: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
Ridong Chen <ridong.chen@linux.dev>
Cc: "Johannes Weiner" <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
"Michal Koutný" <mkoutny@suse.com>,
cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
"Guopeng Zhang" <zhangguopeng@kylinos.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] cgroup/cpuset: Fix cpuset.cpus update in a remote partition
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2026 13:50:24 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <6bbd6b27-a417-436e-aeba-1199626c3c6f@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <0514f986-c125-4a2a-8079-cbbfe5cdc273@redhat.com>
在 2026/10/22 11:23, Waiman Long 写道:
> On 10/10/26 3:59 AM, Guopeng Zhang wrote:
>> From: Guopeng Zhang <zhangguopeng@kylinos.cn>
>>
>> When the CPU list of a remote partition is reduced, a removed CPU may
>> remain unavailable to the top cpuset.
>>
>> This can be reproduced on a cgroup v2 system with CPUs 0-7 online:
>>
>> cd /sys/fs/cgroup
>> echo +cpuset > cgroup.subtree_control
>> mkdir A
>> echo 1-7 > A/cpuset.cpus
>> echo 1-7 > A/cpuset.cpus.exclusive
>> echo +cpuset > A/cgroup.subtree_control
>> mkdir A/B
>> echo 1-4 > A/B/cpuset.cpus
>> echo root > A/B/cpuset.cpus.partition
>> echo 1-3 > A/B/cpuset.cpus
>> cat cpuset.cpus.effective
>>
>> The last command should show 0,4-7, but CPU 4 is missing.
>>
>> update_cpumask() calls partition_cpus_change() while cs->cpus_allowed
>> still contains the old mask. remote_cpus_update() first releases CPU 4,
>> but the hierarchy update revisits B and compute_excpus() still sees the
>> old mask, so CPU 4 is removed from the top cpuset again.
>>
>> Move the cpus_allowed update before partition_cpus_change() so that
>> the hierarchy update sees the new mask when it revisits the cpuset.
>>
>> Fixes: f62a5d39368e ("cgroup/cpuset: Remove remote_partition_check() & make update_cpumasks_hier() handle remote partition")
>> Signed-off-by: Guopeng Zhang <zhangguopeng@kylinos.cn>
>> ---
>> kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c | 5 ++++-
>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c b/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c
>> index 0ebba2d646c3..de7553459adc 100644
>> --- a/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c
>> +++ b/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c
>> @@ -2478,10 +2478,13 @@ static int update_cpumask(struct cpuset *cs, struct cpuset *trialcs,
>> */
>> force = !cpumask_equal(cs->effective_xcpus, trialcs->effective_xcpus);
>> + spin_lock_irq(&callback_lock);
>> + cpumask_copy(cs->cpus_allowed, trialcs->cpus_allowed);
>> + spin_unlock_irq(&callback_lock);
>> +
>> partition_cpus_change(cs, trialcs, &tmp);
>> spin_lock_irq(&callback_lock);
>> - cpumask_copy(cs->cpus_allowed, trialcs->cpus_allowed);
>> cpumask_copy(cs->effective_xcpus, trialcs->effective_xcpus);
>> if ((old_prs > 0) && !is_partition_valid(cs))
>> reset_partition_data(cs);
>
> Sorry for the late reply.
>
> Thanks for reporting this problem. I suspect similar problem may exist with change to cpuset.cpus.exclusive as well. The root cause of this problem is the recursive call to remote_cpus_update() with the second call missing information leading to the revert of the first call. I have posted another patch to address this recursive call problem. Please take a look to see if you agree with that or not.
>
Thanks for the explanation and for looking further into the root cause.
I'll take a look at your patch and run some local tests once I've taken care of some urgent work.
Thanks,
Guopeng
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-10-22 5:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-10-10 7:59 [PATCH 0/2] cgroup/cpuset: Fix partition updates using stale CPU masks Guopeng Zhang
2026-10-10 7:59 ` [PATCH 1/2] cgroup/cpuset: Fix cpuset.cpus update in a remote partition Guopeng Zhang
2026-10-22 3:23 ` Waiman Long
2026-10-22 5:50 ` Guopeng Zhang [this message]
2026-10-10 7:59 ` [PATCH 2/2] cgroup/cpuset: Fix invalid local partition recovery Guopeng Zhang
2026-10-22 3:28 ` Waiman Long
2026-10-22 5:57 ` Guopeng Zhang
2026-10-20 2:51 ` [PATCH 0/2] cgroup/cpuset: Fix partition updates using stale CPU masks Guopeng Zhang
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=6bbd6b27-a417-436e-aeba-1199626c3c6f@linux.dev \
--to=guopeng.zhang@linux.dev \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=mkoutny@suse.com \
--cc=ridong.chen@linux.dev \
--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®