[lkml]   [2007]   [Oct]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [RFC] cpuset update_cgroup_cpus_allowed
    On 10/15/07, Paul Jackson <> wrote:
    > > currently against an older kernel
    > ah .. which older kernel?

    2.6.18, but I can do a version against 2.6.23-mm1.

    > + if (!retval) {
    > + cpus_allowed = cpuset_cpus_allowed(p);
    > + if (!cpus_subset(new_mask, cpus_allowed)) {
    > + /*
    > + * We must have raced with a concurrent cpuset
    > + * update. Just reset the cpus_allowed to the
    > + * cpuset's cpus_allowed
    > + */
    > + new_mask = cpus_allowed;
    > This narrows the race, perhaps sufficiently, but I don't see that it
    > guarantees closure. Memory accesses to two different locations are not
    > guaranteed to be ordered across nodes, as best I recall. The second
    > line above, that rereads the cpuset cpus_allowed, could get an old
    > value, in essence.
    > cpuset update task sched_setaffinity task
    > ------------------ ----------------------
    > A. write cpuset [Q] V. read cpuset [Q]
    > B. read task [P] W. check ok
    > C. write task [P] X. write task [P]
    > Y. reread cpuset [Q]
    > Z. check ok again
    > Two memory locations:
    > [P] the cpus_allowed mask in the task_struct of the
    > task doing the sched_setaffinity call.
    > [Q] the cpus_allowed mask in the cpuset of the cpuset
    > to which the sched_setaffinity task is attached.
    > Even though, from the perspective of location [P], both B. and C.
    > happened before X., still from the perspective of location [Q] the
    > rereading in Y. could return the value the cpuset cpus_allowed had
    > before the write in A. This could result in a task running with
    > a cpus_allowed that was totally outside its cpusets cpus_allowed.

    But cpuset_cpus_allowed() synchronizes on callback_mutex. So I assert
    this race isn't an issue.

    > I will grant that this is a narrow window. I won't loose much sleep
    > over it.
    > > - uses a priority heap to pick the processes to act on, based on start time
    > This adds a fair bit of code and complexity, relative to my patch.
    > This I do loose more sleep over. There has to be a compelling
    > reason for doing this.

    My plan was to hide this inside cgroup_iter_* so that users didn't
    have to hold the cssgroup_lock across the entire iteration.

    > The point that David raises, regarding the interaction of this with
    > hotplug, seems to be a compelling reason for doing -something-
    > different than my patch proposal.
    > I don't know yet if it compels us to this much code, however.
    > Any chance you could provide a patch that works against cgroups?

    Will do - I justed wanted to get this quickly out to show the idea
    that I was working on.

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2007-10-16 07:15    [W:0.026 / U:6.624 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site