On 2013/8/21 22:18, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 06:01:21PM +0800, Li Zefan wrote: >> - if (!cpumask_subset(trialcs->cpus_allowed, cpu_active_mask)) >> + if (!cpumask_subset(trialcs->cpus_allowed, >> + top_cpuset.cpus_allowed)) > > Hmmm... top_cpuset.cpus_allowed is filled using cpumask_setall(), > which may include more bits than cpu_possible_mask, which is kinda > weird. We probably wanna initialize it with cpu_possible_mask and > also maybe using cpu_possible_mask in the above would be clearer? In cpuset_init(), all the bits in cpus_allowed are set. Then in cpuset_init_smp(), it's set to cpu_active_mask. so we should set top_cpuset.cpus_allowed to possible_mask if mount with sane_behavior, otherwise set it to active_mask. > > Also, shouldn't this be dependent upon sane_behavior? > We already treat top_cpus.cpus_allowed differently depending on save_behavior, so the if statement works correctly. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
