Hi Qais,
On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 06:39:34PM +0100, Qais Yousef wrote:
> On 05/18/21 10:47, Will Deacon wrote:
> > diff --git a/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c b/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c
> > index a945504c0ae7..8c799260a4a2 100644
> > --- a/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c
> > +++ b/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c
> > @@ -3322,9 +3322,17 @@ void cpuset_cpus_allowed(struct task_struct *tsk, struct cpumask *pmask)
> >
> > void cpuset_cpus_allowed_fallback(struct task_struct *tsk)
> > {
> > + const struct cpumask *cs_mask;
> > + const struct cpumask *possible_mask = task_cpu_possible_mask(tsk);
> > +
> > rcu_read_lock();
> > - do_set_cpus_allowed(tsk, is_in_v2_mode() ?
> > - task_cs(tsk)->cpus_allowed : cpu_possible_mask);
> > + cs_mask = task_cs(tsk)->cpus_allowed;
> > +
> > + if (!is_in_v2_mode() || !cpumask_subset(cs_mask, possible_mask))
> > + goto unlock; /* select_fallback_rq will try harder */
> > +
> > + do_set_cpus_allowed(tsk, cs_mask);
>
> Shouldn't we take the intersection with possible_mask like we discussed before?
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20201217145954.GA17881@willie-the-truck/
Yes, and that's what the '!cpumask_subset()' check is doing above. Either
we use the valid subset of the cpuset mask (which is the intersection with
the possible mask) or we bail if that set is empty.
Will
