Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Mon, 10 Jul 2023 17:51:24 +0200
From:   Michal =?utf-8?Q?Koutn=C3=BD?= <mkoutny@suse.com>
To:     Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Cc:     Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com>, tj@kernel.org,
        hannes@cmpxchg.org, lizefan.x@bytedance.com,
        cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cgroup/cpuset: update parent subparts cpumask while
 holding css refcnt
Message-ID: <ag6ed2ebb3azrienshnvn775ejp6jsftx66we7mwcavv74q4s7@xm5djhor7bjl>
References: <20230701065049.1758266-1-linmiaohe@huawei.com>
 <fbabnjfly5w6fxrhe3eu6ebspngz2hd3tqs6rrbropcdvylnhs@ayjdpq73kwui>
 <74f1906e-fe58-c745-a851-b160374f7acf@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
        protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="ktauyloq4o6i5icy"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <74f1906e-fe58-c745-a851-b160374f7acf@redhat.com>
Precedence: bulk


--ktauyloq4o6i5icy
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 11:40:36AM -0400, Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> wrote:
> I believe the primary reason is because update_parent_subparts_cpumask() can
> potential run for quite a while. So we don't want to hold the rcu_read_lock
> for too long.

But holding cpuset_mutex is even worse than rcu_read_lock()? IOW is the
relieve with this reason worth it?

> There may also be a potential that schedule() may be called.

Do you mean the spinlocks with PREEMPT_RT or anything else? (That seems
like the actual reason IIUC.)

Thanks,
Michal

--ktauyloq4o6i5icy
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iHUEABYKAB0WIQQpEWyjXuwGT2dDBqAGvrMr/1gcjgUCZKwo+gAKCRAGvrMr/1gc
jvoTAQDxUP5rRDvddw1/LeVeB6ciZXYjqioRtToDzNWdWiOIFAEAi10plOPMMm5q
0JhePeVrhp89P6ZsW9Vqi4y25ZY1mA4=
=qaQM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--ktauyloq4o6i5icy--