Re: [PATCH v2] cgroup/cpuset: rebind mm mempolicy to effective_mems, not mems_allowed

[Waiman Long]

On 6/15/26 5:38 AM, Gregory Price wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2026 at 10:08:51AM +0200, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:
> > On 6/14/26 15:25, Farhad Alemi wrote:
> > > diff --git a/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c b/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c
> > > --- a/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c
> > > @@ -2649,7 +2649,7 @@ void cpuset_update_tasks_nodemask(struct cpuset *cs)
> > >
> > >   		migrate = is_memory_migrate(cs);
> > >
> > > -		mpol_rebind_mm(mm, &cs->mems_allowed);
> > > +		mpol_rebind_mm(mm, &cs->effective_mems);
> > God this is confusing.
> All interactions between mempolicy and cpuset are horrible and
> confusing.  Much like Lorenzo's anon_vma work, I have to keep
> notes on how this whole thing doesn't just spew SIGBUS constantly.
>
> The short answer is: mempolicy is advisory and cpuset is strictly
> followed - in a dispute cpuset wins... except for file backed memory,
> then everyon loses and nothing is consistent.

That is what I believe why mpol_rebind_mm() a bit differently from the 
others and it is historically done this way a long time ago before 
cgroup v2.

For cgroup v1, mems_allowed can't be empty or you can't put any task 
into the cpuset. Also effective_mems is the same as mems_allowed. cgroup 
v2 is quite different in how it handles memory nodes and CPUs. Users can 
isn't forced to set mems_allowed and cpus_allowed as effective_mems and 
effective_cpus will inherit parent version if mems_allowed and 
cpus_allowed are not set. IOW, effective_mems will never be empty. Yes, 
it is a bug with the introduction of cpuset v2 that we should have 
replaced mems_allowed by effective_mems at that time. With v2, 
effective_mems should contain only online nodes. The only exception is 
during the short transition period when a memory node hotunplug 
operation is in progress when a write to cpuset.mems is happening at the 
same time. With v1, it is theoretically possible that none of the nodes 
in mems_allowed is online.

The reason why I am suggesting to use cs->effective_mems to keep the old 
cgroup v1 behavior. If the consensus is to use the output of 
guarantee_online_mems() for mpol_rebind_mm(), I will not be against that 
but it will be a slight change in user-visible behavior.

Cheers, Longman

> > Naturally I wonder: Why are we not using "task->mems_allowed" (maybe cs vs. tsk
> > was the original bug?), which is effectively just newmems?
> Short answer: task->mems_allowed is protected by the task lock and we
> don't hold the task lock for a foreign task (not-current) over mm
> operations.
>
> Long answer: Reasons and "Stop looking at the spaghetti, it's going to
> break"
>
> ~Gregory