Re: [PATCH] cpuset code prevents binding tasks to new cpus
From: Andrew Morton
Date: Tue Aug 22 2006 - 01:07:52 EST
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 21:42:24 -0700
Paul Jackson <pj@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Will it actually break anything?
> It will break any user code that thought it could actually run on the
> CPUs listed in its cpuset, if it happens to be in a task in the top
> cpuset. I'm pretty sure I've got some cpuset users who would be
> harmed by this change.
> One degree of freedom for change we do have is that, as best I know,
> no one is doing anything serious with both cpu hotplug/unplug and with
> cpusets at the same time on the same system. For instance, I am
> willing to wager that no one is counting on the CPUs in the top cpuset
> remaining constant if a CPU comes on or off line. I say this because
> so far as I know, serious cpuset users aren't taking CPUs on and
> off line. I've rather been expecting cpusets and cpu hotplug to
> butt heads for a couple of years now. Looks like the time has come.
> So if I'm right, we could change the API to have the top_cpuset
> cpus_allowed track the cpus_online_map dynamically, rather than being a
> static copy of the cpus_online_map value at system boot, with little
> or no negative impact on users.
> For adding CPUs, that is easy enough, using a register_cpu_notifier
> callback to add new CPUs to top_cpuset.cpus_allowed.
register_hotcpu_notifier(), please. That exists so all the cpu-hotplug
goop can be put inside #ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU,
> This may seem
> like overkill to Nathan, but I think it is necessary, to keep the
> top cpusets CPUs tracking what's online, rather than changing it to
> what's possible (which can be a -much- bigger set of CPUs on some
> configurations, and likely surprising to existing cpuset-aware code.)
> Automatically adding newly onlined CPUs to just the top cpuset (but not
> to other cpusets) does treat the top cpuset as a special case, but I
> doubt this will surprise existing cpuset aware code, and corresponds
> nicely to what hotplug aware, cpuset clueless code will expect.
> For removing CPUs, this is a bit harder, as one cannot remove a CPU
> from a cpuset without first removing it from any child cpusets of
> that cpuset. So I will need to scan the cpuset hierarchy, from the
> bottom up, removing the CPU about to be offline'd, and in the case that
> this was the last CPU in a cpuset, finding some fallback setting for
> that cpuset. I suspect that means moving any poor tasks left in that
> soon to be useless (no CPUs) cpuset into the parent cpuset, then
> empty'ing the cpus_allowed for that cpuset. If the user doesn't like
> this default action, they should have done what they wanted first, by
> adapting their cpuset configuration in anticipation of taking the CPU
> offline. Taking CPUs offline will likely surprise (as in break)
> existing cpuset aware code, but I don't know any way around that.
> In any event, as a workaround with existing kernels, I suspect you could
> make use of the existing /sbin/hotplug mechanism to run the (bash syntax)
> following commands to add a newly online CPU $cpu to the top cpuset's cpus:
> test -d /dev/cpuset || mkdir /dev/cpuset
> test -f /dev/cpuset/cpus || mount -t cpuset cpuset /dev/cpuset
> /bin/echo $(</dev/cpuset/cpus),$cpu > /dev/cpuset/cpus
> This workaround presumes that the number of the CPU being added, $cpu,
> is visible to the user level hotplug script - offhand I don't know if
> that is so or not.
Please, let's get this into the udev tarball and let it trickle out.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/