Hello Waiman.
(I have no opinion on the overall locking reworks, only the bits about v1 migrations caught my attention.)
On Mon, Apr 01, 2024 at 10:58:57AM -0400, Waiman Long longman@redhat.com wrote: ...
@@ -4383,12 +4377,20 @@ hotplug_update_tasks_legacy(struct cpuset *cs, /* * Move tasks to the nearest ancestor with execution resources, * This is full cgroup operation which will also call back into
* cpuset. Should be done outside any lock.
* cpuset. Execute it asynchronously using workqueue.
...to avoid deadlock on cpus_read_lock
Is this the reason? Also, what happens with the tasks in the window till the migration happens? Is it handled gracefully that their cpu is gone?
- if (is_empty) {
mutex_unlock(&cpuset_mutex);
remove_tasks_in_empty_cpuset(cs);
mutex_lock(&cpuset_mutex);
- if (is_empty && css_tryget_online(&cs->css)) {
struct cpuset_remove_tasks_struct *s;
s = kzalloc(sizeof(*s), GFP_KERNEL);
Is there a benefit of having a work for each cpuset? Instead of traversing whole top_cpuset once in the async work.
Thanks, Michal