On 2025/11/14 14:33, Sun Shaojie wrote:
On 2025/11/14 08:50, Chen Ridong Wrote:
On 2025/11/13 21:14, Sun Shaojie wrote:
... diff --git a/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c b/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c index 52468d2c178a..3240b3ab5998 100644 --- a/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c +++ b/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c @@ -592,8 +592,13 @@ static inline bool cpusets_are_exclusive(struct cpuset *cs1, struct cpuset *cs2) */ static inline bool cpus_excl_conflict(struct cpuset *cs1, struct cpuset *cs2) {
- /* If either cpuset is exclusive, check if they are mutually exclusive */
- if (is_cpu_exclusive(cs1) || is_cpu_exclusive(cs2))
- /* If both cpusets are exclusive, check if they are mutually exclusive */
- if (is_cpu_exclusive(cs1) && is_cpu_exclusive(cs2))
return !cpusets_are_exclusive(cs1, cs2);- /* In cgroup-v1, if either cpuset is exclusive, check if they are mutually exclusive */
- if (!is_in_v2_mode() &&
(is_cpu_exclusive(cs1) != is_cpu_exclusive(cs2)))I prefer adding a helper function in the cpuset-v1.c file, similar to cpus_excl_conflict_legacy().
For cpuset v1, it can simply return cpus_excl_conflict_legacy(). It seems that other rules are not relevant to v1.
/* Exclusive_cpus cannot intersect */
Hi, Ridong,
Thank you for the suggestion.I will update the patch accordingly.
If we are ready to relax this rule, adding the v1 logic in cpuset1_validate_change might be appropriate. However, as I mentioned in my reply to Michal, I believe further discussion is needed.