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 v3 3/4] cpuset: settle isolation state when CPUs are given back to parent
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2026 11:14:53 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <fe49691f-54d9-410e-9110-bf2522ab17e8@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <09c033dd-41dc-4503-9def-4e662e946dc4@redhat.com>
On 11/9/2026 10:51 PM, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 11/7/26 7:00 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_update() assumes the old and new states are different,
>> which no longer holds now that partition_xcpus_del() proceeds regardless
>> of the states. Drop its @old_prs argument and the WARN_ON_ONCE() so that
>> it simply sets the isolation state of the given CPUs, and use it
>> everywhere. The state check in partition_xcpus_add() is dropped as well,
>> as setting the state is a no-op when the states are the same.
>>
>> isolated_cpus_release() is no longer needed and is removed.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ridong Chen <chenridong@xiaomi.com>
>> ---
>> kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c | 98 ++++++++----------------------------------
>> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 79 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c b/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c
>> index 85e5b529d144..fc9de6e16ff5 100644
>> --- a/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c
>> +++ b/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c
>> @@ -1244,17 +1244,17 @@ static bool isolated_cpu_update(int new_prs, int cpu)
>> }
>> /*
>> - * isolated_cpus_update - Update the isolated_cpus mask
>> - * @old_prs: old partition_root_state
>> - * @new_prs: new partition_root_state
>> - * @xcpus: exclusive CPUs with state change
>> + * isolated_cpus_update - Set the isolation state of @xcpus
>> + * @new_prs: partition root state that @xcpus will belong to
>> + * @xcpus: exclusive CPUs whose isolation state may change
>> + *
>> + * CPUs isolated at boot time are kept isolated.
>> */
>> -static void isolated_cpus_update(int old_prs, int new_prs, struct cpumask
>> *xcpus)
>> +static void isolated_cpus_update(int new_prs, struct cpumask *xcpus)
>> {
>> bool updated = false;
>> int cpu;
>> - WARN_ON_ONCE(old_prs == new_prs);
>> lockdep_assert_held(&callback_lock);
>> lockdep_assert_held(&cpuset_mutex);
>> for_each_cpu(cpu, xcpus)
>> @@ -1263,45 +1263,6 @@ static void isolated_cpus_update(int old_prs, int
>> new_prs, struct cpumask *xcpus
>> update_housekeeping = true;
>> }
>> -/*
>> - * 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.
>> - */
>> -static void isolated_cpus_release(struct cpuset *cs, 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 */
>> -
>> - spin_lock_irq(&callback_lock);
>> - isolated_cpus_update(PRS_ISOLATED, PRS_ROOT, xcpus);
>> - spin_unlock_irq(&callback_lock);
>> -}
>> -
>> /*
>> * partition_xcpus_add - Add new exclusive CPUs to partition
>> * @new_prs: new partition_root_state
>> @@ -1325,9 +1286,7 @@ static void partition_xcpus_add(int new_prs, struct
>> cpuset *parent,
>> if (parent == &top_cpuset)
>> cpumask_or(subpartitions_cpus, subpartitions_cpus, xcpus);
>> - if (new_prs != parent->partition_root_state)
>> - isolated_cpus_update(parent->partition_root_state, new_prs,
>> - xcpus);
>> + isolated_cpus_update(new_prs, xcpus);
>> cpumask_andnot(parent->effective_cpus, parent->effective_cpus, xcpus);
>> }
>> @@ -1355,9 +1314,8 @@ 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_update(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 +1570,7 @@ 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 +1599,15 @@ 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_update(parent_prs, &xcpus);
>> child->partition_root_state = -old_prs;
>> spin_unlock_irq(&callback_lock);
>> notify_partition_change(child, old_prs);
>> @@ -2080,22 +2040,8 @@ 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 +2287,12 @@ 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);
>> @@ -3108,7 +3048,7 @@ static int update_prstate(struct cpuset *cs, int new_prs)
>> if (!is_partition_valid(cs))
>> reset_partition_data(cs);
>> else if (isolcpus_updated)
>> - isolated_cpus_update(old_prs, new_prs, cs->effective_xcpus);
>> + isolated_cpus_update(new_prs, cs->effective_xcpus);
>> spin_unlock_irq(&callback_lock);
>> /* Force update if partition is disabled & update effective_xcpus */
>
> The code change looks good to me. However this is not just a code restructuring,
> it also includes a bug fix. I wonder if we should clarify that and maybe add a
> Fixes tag.
>
Hi Longman,
Thanks for the review. You are right, it also fixes the isolated CPU
leak reported by Guopeng [1]. When a root partition with an isolated
child partition is invalidated, partition_xcpus_del() gives the CPUs
back to the parent without updating isolated_cpus as both are root
partitions, so the CPUs of the isolated child are left in
isolated_cpus.
I'd like to describe it in the commit message and add the following
tags in the next version:
Fixes: 11e5f407b64a ("cgroup/cpuset: Keep track of CPUs in isolated partitions")
Reported-by: Guopeng Zhang <zhangguopeng@kylinos.cn>
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20261105130344.664336-4-guopeng.zhang@linux.dev/
Does that look OK to you?
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20261105130344.664336-4-guopeng.zhang@linux.dev/
--
Best regards
Ridong
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-11-10 3:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-11-07 12:00 [PATCH v3 0/4] cpuset: preparatory fixes and cleanups for partition rework Ridong Chen
2026-11-07 12:00 ` [PATCH v3 1/4] cgroup/cpuset: Reset partition data when an invalid partition stays invalid Ridong Chen
2026-11-09 14:59 ` Guopeng Zhang
2026-11-07 12:00 ` [PATCH v3 2/4] cpuset: add early empty cpumask check in partition_xcpus_add/del Ridong Chen
2026-11-09 15:48 ` Tejun Heo
2026-11-07 12:00 ` [PATCH v3 3/4] cpuset: settle isolation state when CPUs are given back to parent Ridong Chen
2026-11-09 14:51 ` Waiman Long
2026-11-10 3:14 ` Ridong Chen [this message]
2026-11-09 15:20 ` Guopeng Zhang
2026-11-07 12:01 ` [PATCH v3 4/4] cpuset: generalize the validate_partition() interface Ridong Chen
2026-11-09 14:52 ` Waiman Long
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=fe49691f-54d9-410e-9110-bf2522ab17e8@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®