On 6/30/26 9:41 PM, Ridong Chen wrote:
@@ -3246,7 +3268,12 @@ ssize_t cpuset_write_resmask(struct
kernfs_open_file *of,
return -EACCES;
buf = strstrip(buf);
- cpuset_full_lock();
+
+ /* cpuset_mutex acquired in wait_attach_done_lock() */
+ mutex_lock(&cpuset_top_mutex);
+ cpus_read_lock();
+ wait_attach_done_lock();
+
Would it be cleaner to just pass this into cpuset_full_lock() as a flag?
void cpuset_full_lock(bool wait_attach)
{
mutex_lock(&cpuset_top_mutex);
cpus_read_lock();
if (wait_attach)
wait_attach_done_lock();
else
mutex_lock(&cpuset_mutex);
}
Then the two write paths become a single cpuset_full_lock(true). The
downside is the other 6 callers would need cpuset_full_lock(false).
Not sure it's worth it â what do you think?
I would like to put wait_attach_done_lock() at places where it will wait
for the completion of the attach operation. Putting it inside
cpuset_full_lock() will make it harder to find out which operations will
need to wait for task attach. So I will keep the code as is.
Cheers,
Longman
