From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Guopeng Zhang <guopeng.zhang@linux.dev>,
Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Cc: "Ridong Chen" <ridong.chen@linux.dev>,
"Johannes Weiner" <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
"Michal Koutný" <mkoutny@suse.com>,
"Guopeng Zhang" <zhangguopeng@kylinos.cn>,
cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] cgroup/cpuset: Invalidate remote partition on housekeeping conflict
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2026 08:44:40 -1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7f4c57b26ad120ab30adf35653f1dd94@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260927095722.70660-1-guopeng.zhang@linux.dev>
Hello, Guopeng.
The following is a Claude-generated review.
On Sun, Sep 27, 2026 at 05:57:21PM +0800, Guopeng Zhang wrote:
> + bool updating = is_remote_partition(cs);
> +
> + if (!capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
> + return PERR_ACCESS;
> +
> + if (!updating &&
> + (!cpumask_intersects(excpus, cpu_active_mask) ||
> + cpumask_subset(top_cpuset.effective_cpus, addcpus)))
> + return PERR_INVCPUS;
cs->remote_partition can be stale when remote_partition_enable() is
called. If a root <-> isolated switch of a valid remote partition fails
in update_prstate(), the partition is made invalid without
remote_partition_disable(), so the flag stays set and its CPUs stay in
subpartitions_cpus. A later enable then skips the PERR_INVCPUS checks.
With isolcpus=domain,4:
1. A is a member with cpuset.cpus 2-6 and cpuset.cpus.exclusive 2-4. B
has cpuset.cpus 2-4 and no cpuset.cpus.exclusive.
2. "isolated" to B's cpuset.cpus.partition. B becomes a valid remote
partition with effective_xcpus 2-4.
3. "root" to B's cpuset.cpus.partition fails with PERR_HKEEPING.
effective_xcpus is cleared but remote_partition stays set.
4. 5-6 to A's cpuset.cpus.exclusive. B's excpus becomes empty, which
matches the cleared effective_xcpus, so update_cpumasks_hier() skips
B.
5. "isolated" to B's cpuset.cpus.partition. This used to fail with
PERR_INVCPUS. Now B becomes a valid isolated partition with empty
effective_xcpus and the WARN_ON_ONCE() at the end of update_prstate()
triggers.
This is from reading the code, not reproduced. Maybe have the callers
pass whether it's an enable or an update instead of deriving it from
cs->remote_partition?
The stale flag itself is a separate, pre-existing bug. Switching B back
to member after step 3 trips the WARN_ON_ONCE(old_prs < 0) in
partition_xcpus_del().
Thanks.
--
tejun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-09-28 18:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-27 9:57 Guopeng Zhang
2026-09-28 0:00 ` Waiman Long
2026-09-28 1:29 ` Ridong Chen
2026-09-28 18:44 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2026-09-28 23:56 ` Waiman Long
2026-09-29 2:33 ` 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=7f4c57b26ad120ab30adf35653f1dd94@kernel.org \
--to=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=guopeng.zhang@linux.dev \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=mkoutny@suse.com \
--cc=ridong.chen@linux.dev \
--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®