Re: [PATCH-cgroup 2/2] cgroup/cpuset: Include isolated cpuset CPUs in cpu_is_isolated() check

[Waiman Long]

On 11/28/23 11:56, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Sun, Nov 26, 2023 at 11:19:56PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> > +bool cpuset_cpu_is_isolated(int cpu)
> > +{
> > +	unsigned int seq;
> > +	bool ret;
> > +
> > +	do {
> > +		seq = read_seqcount_begin(&isolcpus_seq);
> > +		ret = cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, isolated_cpus);
> > +	} while (read_seqcount_retry(&isolcpus_seq, seq));
> > +	return ret;
> > +}
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(cpuset_cpu_is_isolated);
> We're testing a bit in a bitmask. I don't think we need to worry about value
> integrity from RMW updates being broken up. ie. We can just test the bit
> without seqlock and drop the first patch?

My concern is that if we have an isolated partition with a set of 
isolated CPUs (say 2-4), I don't want any addition, deletion of changes 
made to another isolated partition affects the test of the pre-existing 
one. Testing result of the partition being change is fair game.

Depending on how the cpumask operators are implemented, we may not have 
a guarantee that testing CPU 2, for instance, will always return true. 
That is why I am adding some synchronization primitive to prevent 
racing. My original plan was to take the callback_lock. However, that 
can be somewhat costly if this API is used rather frequently, especially 
on systems with large # of CPUs. So I change it to use seqcount for read 
protection which has a much lower cost.

Regarding patch 1 on converting callback_lock to raw_spinlock_t, I can 
drop it if you have concern about that change. I just need to surround 
the write_seqcount_begin()/write_seqcount_end() calls with 
preempt_disabled()/preempt_enabled().

Cheers,
Longman