lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Feb]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateWed, 24 Feb 2010 17:35:57 +0800
FromMiao Xie <>
SubjectRe: [regression] cpuset,mm: update tasks' mems_allowed in time (58568d2)
on 2010-2-24 6:31, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010, Miao Xie wrote:
>
>>> Cpu hotplug sets top_cpuset's cpus_allowed to cpu_active_mask by default,
>>> regardless of what was onlined or offlined. cpus_attach in the context of
>>> your patch (in cpuset_attach()) passes cpu_possible_mask to
>>> set_cpus_allowed_ptr() if the task is being attached to top_cpuset, my
>>> question was why don't we pass cpu_active_mask instead? In other words, I
>>> think we should do
>>>
>>> cpumask_copy(cpus_attach, cpu_active_mask);
>>>
>>> when attached to top_cpuset like my patch did.
>>
>> If we pass cpu_active_mask to set_cpus_allowed_ptr(), task->cpus_allowed just contains
>> the online cpus. In this way, if we do cpu hotplug(such as: online some cpu), we must
>> update cpus_allowed of all tasks in the top cpuset.
>>
>> But if we pass cpu_possible_mask, we needn't update cpus_allowed of all tasks in the
>> top cpuset. And when the kernel looks for a cpu for task to run, the kernel will use
>> cpu_active_mask to filter out offline cpus in task->cpus_allowed. Thus, it is safe.
>>
>
> That is terribly inconsistent between top_cpuset and all descendants; all
> other cpusets require that task->cpus_allowed be a subset of
> cpu_online_mask, including those descendants that allow all cpus (and all
> mems).

I think it is not a big deal because it is safe and doesn't cause any problem.
Beside that, task->cpus_allowed is initialized to cpu_possible_mask on the no-cpuset
kernel, so using cpu_possible_mask to initialize task->cpus_allowed is reasonable.
(top cpuset is a special cpuset, isn't it?)





\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-02-24 10:39    [from the cache]
©2003-2010