Re: [PATCH 1/2] cpuset: Fix cpuset_cpus_allowed() to not filter offline CPUs

[Waiman Long]

On 2/2/23 16:50, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 02, 2023 at 04:05:14PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> > On 2/2/23 15:53, Waiman Long wrote:
> > > On 2/2/23 15:48, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Feb 02, 2023 at 03:46:02PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> > > > > > > I will work on a patchset to do that as a counter offer.
> > > > > > We will need a small and simple patch for /urgent, or I will need to
> > > > > > revert all your patches -- your call.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I also don't tihnk you fully appreciate the ramifications of
> > > > > > task_cpu_possible_mask(), cpuset currently gets that quite wrong.
> > > > > OK, I don't realize the urgency of that. If it is that urgent, I
> > > > > will have
> > > > > no objection to get it in for now. We can improve it later on.
> > > > > So are you
> > > > > planning to get it into the current 6.2 rc or 6.3?
> > > > >
> > > > > Tejun, are you OK with that as you are the cgroup maintainer?
> > > > Yeah, gotta fix the regression but is there currently a solution
> > > > which fixes
> > > > the regression but doesn't further break other stuff?
> > > I believe there is a better way to do that, but it will need more time
> > > to flex out. Since cpuset_cpus_allowed() is only used by
> > > kernel/sched/core.c, Peter will be responsible if it somehow breaks
> > > other stuff.
> > Maybe my cpuset patch that don't update task's cpumask on cpu offline event
> > can help. However, I don't know the exact scenario where the regression
> > happen, so it may not.
> Neither patch looks like they would break anything. That said, the patches
> aren't trivial and we're really close to the merge window, so I'd really
> appreciate if you can take a look and test a bit before we send these
> Linus's way. We can replace it with a better solution afterwards.

OK, will do.

Cheers,
Longman