Hello, On Wed, Jan 08, 2025 at 02:27:07PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote: > On 1/8/25 11:53 AM, Tejun Heo wrote: > This patch looks good me. However, this does raise a question that I > overlook when I made hotplug operation synchronous while task transfer, if > needed, remained asynchronous. There is a very slight chance where we keep > removing tasks added after execution capability is restored. As cgroup v1 is > in the process of being deprecated, do you think we still need to do > something to address this issue? I *think* that should be fine. In cgroup1, the kernel is making irreversible system config changes when a cgroup loses all its CPUs. I have a hard time imagining use cases that would depend on the the exact ordering of operations at that point. The auto transfer-out was always the last ditch measure to not leave the system in a broken state after all. If someone's depending on the transfer out being strictly ordered w.r.t. the cgroup losing all CPUs and then gaining some, let's hear why the hell that ordering matters first. Thanks. -- tejun
