Hello, Li. On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 05:16:59PM +0800, Li Zefan wrote: > @@ -2092,11 +2183,13 @@ static void cpuset_propagate_hotplug_workfn(struct work_struct *work) > mutex_unlock(&cpuset_mutex); > > /* > - * If @cs became empty, move tasks to the nearest ancestor with > - * execution resources. This is full cgroup operation which will > + * If sane_behavior flag is set, we'll keep tasks in empty cpusets. > + * > + * Otherwise move tasks to the nearest ancestor with execution > + * resources. This is full cgroup operation which will > * also call back into cpuset. Should be done outside any lock. > */ > - if (is_empty) > + if (!sane && is_empty) > remove_tasks_in_empty_cpuset(cs); > > /* the following may free @cs, should be the last operation */ > @@ -2171,6 +2264,7 @@ static void cpuset_hotplug_workfn(struct work_struct *work) > cpumask_copy(top_cpuset.cpus_allowed, &new_cpus); > mutex_unlock(&callback_mutex); > /* we don't mess with cpumasks of tasks in top_cpuset */ > + update_tasks_cpumask_hier(&top_cpuset, false, NULL); > } I'm a little confused by the order of operation. We now have two different hierarchical walks for hotplug propagation, right? I suppose the above one is added because we now also need to update the mask when cpus are being brought online? I wonder whether it'd be possible to merge the two paths. My suspicion is that we probably don't need propagate_hotplug_work anymore now that we can drop RCU read lock while doing the pre-order walk. What do you think? Thanks. -- tejun _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
