Re: [PATCH -next 00/21] cpuset: rework local partition logic

[Chen Ridong]

On 2025/11/25 9:09, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 11/24/25 7:49 PM, Chen Ridong wrote:
>>
>> On 2025/11/17 10:46, Chen Ridong wrote:
>>> From: Chen Ridong <chenridong@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> The current local partition implementation consolidates all operations
>>> (enable, disable, invalidate, and update) within the large
>>> update_parent_effective_cpumask() function, which exceeds 300 lines.
>>> This monolithic approach has become increasingly difficult to understand
>>> and maintain. Additionally, partition-related fields are updated in
>>> multiple locations, leading to redundant code and potential corner case
>>> oversights.
>>>
>>> This patch series refactors the local partition logic by separating
>>> operations into dedicated functions: local_partition_enable(),
>>> local_partition_disable(), and local_partition_update(), creating
>>> symmetry with the existing remote partition infrastructure.
>>>
>>> The series is organized as follows:
>>>
>>> 1. Infrastructure Preparation (Patches 1-2):
>>>     - Code cleanup and preparation for the refactoring work
>>>
>>> 2. Introduce partition operation helpers (Patches 3-5):
>>>     - Introduce out partition_enable(), partition_disable(), and
>>>       partition_update() functions.
>>>
>>> 3. Use new helpers for remote partition (Patches 6-8)
>>>
>>> 4. Local Partition Implementation (Patches 9-12):
>>>     - Separate update_parent_effective_cpumask() into dedicated functions:
>>>       * local_partition_enable()
>>>       * local_partition_disable()
>>>       * local_partition_update()
>>>
>>> 5. Optimization and Cleanup (Patches 13-21):
>>>     - Remove redundant partition-related operations
>>>     - Additional optimizations based on the new architecture
>>>
>>> base-commit: 6d7e7251d03f98f26f2ee0dfd21bb0a0480a2178
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Changes from RFC v2:
>>> 1. Dropped the bugfix (already merged/fixed upstream)
>>> 2. Rebased onto next
>>> 3. Introduced partition_switch to handle root state switches
>>> 4. Directly use local_partition_disable()—no longer first introduce
>>>     local_partition_invalidate() before unifying the two
>>> 5. Incorporated modifications based on Longman's suggestions
>>>
>>> Changes in RFC v1:
>>> 1. Added bugfix for root partition isolcpus at series start.
>>> 2. Completed helper function implementations when first introduced.
>>> 3. Split larger patches into smaller, more reviewable units.
>>> 4. Incorporated feedback from Longman.
>>>
>>> Chen Ridong (21):
>>>    cpuset: add early empty cpumask check in partition_xcpus_add/del
>>>    cpuset: generalize the validate_partition() interface
>>>    cpuset: introduce partition_enable()
>>>    cpuset: introduce partition_disable()
>>>    cpuset: introduce partition_update()
>>>    cpuset: use partition_enable() for remote partition enablement
>>>    cpuset: use partition_disable() for remote partition disablement
>>>    cpuset: use partition_update() for remote partition update
>>>    cpuset: introduce local_partition_enable()
>>>    cpuset: introduce local_partition_disable()
>>>    cpuset: user local_partition_disable() to invalidate local partition
>>>    cpuset: introduce local_partition_update()
>>>    cpuset: remove update_parent_effective_cpumask
>>>    cpuset: remove redundant partition field updates
>>>    cpuset: simplify partition update logic for hotplug tasks
>>>    cpuset: use partition_disable for compute_partition_effective_cpumask
>>>    cpuset: use validate_local_partition in local_partition_enable
>>>    cpuset: introduce validate_remote_partition
>>>    cpuset: simplify the update_prstate() function
>>>    cpuset: remove prs_err clear when notify_partition_change
>>>    cpuset: Remove unnecessary validation in partition_cpus_change
>>>
>>>   kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c | 1014 ++++++++++++++++++----------------------
>>>   1 file changed, 453 insertions(+), 561 deletions(-)
>>>
>> Hi Longman,
>>
>> I would greatly appreciate it if you could review this series when you are available.
>>
> I was expecting a v3 and so I had probably missed it. Will take a look sometimes this week.
> 

Thank you very much.

-- 
Best regards,
Ridong