On 2025/12/25 15:30, Waiman Long wrote:
If exclusive_cpus is set, effective_xcpus must be a subset of exclusive_cpus. Currently, rm_siblings_excl_cpus() checks both exclusive_cpus and effective_xcpus connectively. It is simpler to check only exclusive_cpus if non-empty or just effective_xcpus otherwise.
No functional change is expected.
Signed-off-by: Waiman Long longman@redhat.com
kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c | 17 +++++++++-------- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c b/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c index 221da921b4f9..3d2d28f0fd03 100644 --- a/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c +++ b/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c @@ -1355,23 +1355,24 @@ static int rm_siblings_excl_cpus(struct cpuset *parent, struct cpuset *cs, int retval = 0; if (cpumask_empty(excpus))
return retval;
return 0;/* * Exclude exclusive CPUs from siblings */ rcu_read_lock(); cpuset_for_each_child(sibling, css, parent) {
struct cpumask *sibling_xcpus;- if (sibling == cs) continue;
if (cpumask_intersects(excpus, sibling->exclusive_cpus)) {cpumask_andnot(excpus, excpus, sibling->exclusive_cpus);retval++;continue;}if (cpumask_intersects(excpus, sibling->effective_xcpus)) {cpumask_andnot(excpus, excpus, sibling->effective_xcpus);
sibling_xcpus = cpumask_empty(sibling->exclusive_cpus)? sibling->effective_xcpus: sibling->exclusive_cpus;
I'm wondering if this is sufficient?
sibling_xcpus = sibling->effective_xcpus
p(exclusive_cpus = 1) / \ a b(root, exclusive_cpus=1-7, effective_xcpus=1)
What the sibling's effective exclusive CPUs actually should be is not CPUs 1-7 but CPU 1. So, do we need to remove CPUs 2-7?
if (cpumask_intersects(excpus, sibling_xcpus)) {cpumask_andnot(excpus, excpus, sibling_xcpus); retval++;