Hi, Ridong, On 2025/11/17 19:37, Chen Ridong wrote: >On 2025/11/17 18:00, Sun Shaojie wrote: >> Certainly, this rule applies regardless of whether cs1 or cs2 is exclusive, >> and the current implementation already handles it this way. >> The following two cases cover this rule. >> "1. If cs1 is exclusive, cs1 and cs2 must be mutually exclusive" >> "3. If cs2 is exclusive, cs2's allowed CPUs cannot be a subset of cs1's >> exclusive CPUs" >> > >I believe this function should return the same result regardless of whether it >is called as >cpus_excl_conflict(A1, B1) or cpus_excl_conflict(B1, A1), which means cs1 and >cs2 should be treated >symmetrically. However, since cs1 and cs2 are handled differently, it is >difficult to convince me >that this implementation is correct.
In patch v5, modifications to the cpus_excl_conflict interface have been avoided, along with preventing the following ineffective scenario. Both A1 and B1 are exclusive, change B1's cpuset.cpus, avoid A1 becoming non-exclusive. Looking forward to your feedback on patch v5. patch v5 : https://lore.kernel.org/cgroups/[email protected]/ Thanks, Sun Shaojie
