From: Waiman Long <llong@redhat.com>
To: Chen Ridong <chenridong@huaweicloud.com>,
tj@kernel.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org, mkoutny@suse.com
Cc: cgups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
lujialin4@huawei.com, chenridong@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next RFC 11/16] cpuset: simplify partition update logic for hotplug tasks
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2025 23:00:14 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <b436725e-215f-467f-9123-1853f65c3946@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250928071306.3797436-12-chenridong@huaweicloud.com>
On 9/28/25 3:13 AM, Chen Ridong wrote:
> From: Chen Ridong <chenridong@huawei.com>
>
> Simplify the partition update logic in cpuset_hotplug_update_tasks() by
> calling the unified local_partition_update() interface.
>
> For local partitions, the previous patch introduced local_partition_update
> which handles both validation state transitions:
> - Invalidates local partitions that fail validation checks
> - Transitions invalid partitions to valid state when no errors are detected
>
> This eliminates the need for separate transition logic
> in cpuset_hotplug_update_tasks(), which can now simply call
> local_partition_update() to handle all local partition changes.
>
> This patch simplifies the logic by always proceeding to update_tasks for
> remote partitions, regardless of whether they were disabled or not. Since
> the original code didn't perform any meaningful operations for non-disabled
> remote partitions, this change should not affect functionality.
>
> The partition_cmd mechanism can now be safely removed as it is no longer
It is partition_cmd enum type.
> referenced by any code paths after the partition update logic
> simplification.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chen Ridong <chenridong@huawei.com>
> ---
> kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c | 67 ++++++++++++++++--------------------------
> 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 41 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c b/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c
> index 9e98df542715..a1896a199c8b 100644
> --- a/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c
> +++ b/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c
> @@ -1211,17 +1211,6 @@ static void compute_effective_cpumask(struct cpumask *new_cpus,
> cpumask_and(new_cpus, cs->cpus_allowed, parent->effective_cpus);
> }
>
> -/*
> - * Commands for update_parent_effective_cpumask
> - */
> -enum partition_cmd {
> - partcmd_enable, /* Enable partition root */
> - partcmd_enablei, /* Enable isolated partition root */
> - partcmd_disable, /* Disable partition root */
> - partcmd_update, /* Update parent's effective_cpus */
> - partcmd_invalidate, /* Make partition invalid */
> -};
> -
> static void update_sibling_cpumasks(struct cpuset *parent, struct cpuset *cs,
> struct tmpmasks *tmp);
>
> @@ -2062,6 +2051,9 @@ static int __local_partition_update(struct cpuset *cs, struct cpumask *xcpus,
> update_partition_sd_lb(cs, old_prs);
> return part_error;
> }
> + /* Nothing changes, return PERR_NONE */
> + if (new_prs == old_prs && cpumask_equal(excpus, cs->effective_xcpus))
> + return PERR_NONE;
I believe you already have this check added when you introduce
__local_partition_update() in patch 9. It is a duplicate.
Cheers,
Longman
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-10-20 3:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 45+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-09-28 7:12 [PATCH -next RFC 00/16] cpuset: rework local partition logic Chen Ridong
2025-09-28 7:12 ` [PATCH -next RFC 01/16] cpuset: use update_partition_sd_lb in update_cpumasks_hier Chen Ridong
2025-10-20 2:37 ` Waiman Long
2025-10-20 7:30 ` Chen Ridong
2025-09-28 7:12 ` [PATCH -next RFC 02/16] cpuset: generalize validate_partition() interface Chen Ridong
2025-09-28 7:12 ` [PATCH -next RFC 03/16] cpuset: factor out partition_enable() function Chen Ridong
2025-10-20 2:39 ` Waiman Long
2025-10-20 7:48 ` Chen Ridong
2025-10-20 19:42 ` Waiman Long
2025-10-21 0:52 ` Chen Ridong
2025-09-28 7:12 ` [PATCH -next RFC 04/16] cpuset: factor out partition_disable() function Chen Ridong
2025-09-28 7:12 ` [PATCH -next RFC 05/16] cpuset: factor out partition_update() function Chen Ridong
2025-10-20 2:43 ` Waiman Long
2025-10-20 8:05 ` Chen Ridong
2025-10-20 19:45 ` Waiman Long
2025-09-28 7:12 ` [PATCH -next RFC 06/16] cpuset: introduce local_partition_enable() Chen Ridong
2025-10-20 2:44 ` Waiman Long
2025-10-20 8:06 ` Chen Ridong
2025-09-28 7:12 ` [PATCH -next RFC 07/16] cpuset: introduce local_partition_disable() Chen Ridong
2025-10-20 2:46 ` Waiman Long
2025-10-20 8:06 ` Chen Ridong
2025-09-28 7:12 ` [PATCH -next RFC 08/16] cpuset: introduce local_partition_invalidate() Chen Ridong
2025-10-20 2:48 ` Waiman Long
2025-10-20 8:28 ` Chen Ridong
2025-09-28 7:12 ` [PATCH -next RFC 09/16] cpuset: introduce local_partition_update() Chen Ridong
2025-10-20 2:57 ` Waiman Long
2025-10-20 9:24 ` Chen Ridong
2025-09-28 7:13 ` [PATCH -next RFC 10/16] cpuset: remove redundant partition field updates Chen Ridong
2025-09-28 7:13 ` [PATCH -next RFC 11/16] cpuset: simplify partition update logic for hotplug tasks Chen Ridong
2025-10-20 3:00 ` Waiman Long [this message]
2025-10-20 8:44 ` Chen Ridong
2025-09-28 7:13 ` [PATCH -next RFC 12/16] cpuset: unify local partition disable and invalidate Chen Ridong
2025-09-28 7:13 ` [PATCH -next RFC 13/16] cpuset: use partition_disable for compute_partition_effective_cpumask Chen Ridong
2025-10-20 3:02 ` Waiman Long
2025-10-20 8:47 ` Chen Ridong
2025-09-28 7:13 ` [PATCH -next RFC 14/16] cpuset: fix isolcpus stay in root when isolated partition changes to root Chen Ridong
2025-10-20 3:06 ` Waiman Long
2025-10-20 9:13 ` Chen Ridong
2025-10-22 10:49 ` Chen Ridong
2025-09-28 7:13 ` [PATCH -next RFC 15/16] cpuset: use partition_disable for update_prstate Chen Ridong
2025-09-28 7:13 ` [PATCH -next RFC 16/16] cpuset: remove prs_err clear when notify_partition_change Chen Ridong
2025-09-28 9:57 ` [PATCH -next RFC 00/16] cpuset: rework local partition logic Chen Ridong
2025-09-28 16:00 ` Waiman Long
2025-09-29 1:17 ` Chen Ridong
2025-10-17 1:05 ` Chen Ridong
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=b436725e-215f-467f-9123-1853f65c3946@redhat.com \
--to=llong@redhat.com \
--cc=cgups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=chenridong@huawei.com \
--cc=chenridong@huaweicloud.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lujialin4@huawei.com \
--cc=mkoutny@suse.com \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
/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®