Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.31 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.31;
Sender: Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 28 Nov 2023 06:56:08 -1000
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To:     Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Cc:     Zefan Li <lizefan.x@bytedance.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
        cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Mrunal Patel <mpatel@redhat.com>,
        Ryan Phillips <rphillips@redhat.com>,
        Brent Rowsell <browsell@redhat.com>,
        Peter Hunt <pehunt@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH-cgroup 2/2] cgroup/cpuset: Include isolated cpuset CPUs
 in cpu_is_isolated() check
Message-ID: <ZWYbqNnnt6gQOssK@slm.duckdns.org>
References: <20231127041956.266026-1-longman@redhat.com>
 <20231127041956.266026-3-longman@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20231127041956.266026-3-longman@redhat.com>
Precedence: bulk

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?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun