From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail138.messagelabs.com (mail138.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.35]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 97AB06B0085 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 2010 04:24:09 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4B839E9D.8020604@cn.fujitsu.com> Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 17:23:41 +0800 From: Miao Xie Reply-To: miaox@cn.fujitsu.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [regression] cpuset,mm: update tasks' mems_allowed in time (58568d2) References: <20100218134921.GF9738@laptop> <20100219033126.GI9738@laptop> <4B827043.3060305@cn.fujitsu.com> <4B838490.1050908@cn.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: David Rientjes Cc: Nick Piggin , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Lee Schermerhorn List-ID: on 2010-2-23 16:55, David Rientjes 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. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org