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
