From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/11] cpuset: allow writing offlined masks to cpuset.cpus/mems Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 10:18:51 -0400 Message-ID: <20130821141851.GJ19286__13067.7099260085$1377094752$gmane$org@mtj.dyndns.org> References: <52148F52.0@huawei.com> <52148FF1.5060503@huawei.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <52148FF1.5060503-hv44wF8Li93QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org Errors-To: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org To: Li Zefan Cc: Cgroups , Containers , LKML List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org Hello, On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 06:01:21PM +0800, Li Zefan wrote: > - if (!cpumask_subset(trialcs->cpus_allowed, cpu_active_mask)) > + if (!cpumask_subset(trialcs->cpus_allowed, > + top_cpuset.cpus_allowed)) Hmmm... top_cpuset.cpus_allowed is filled using cpumask_setall(), which may include more bits than cpu_possible_mask, which is kinda weird. We probably wanna initialize it with cpu_possible_mask and also maybe using cpu_possible_mask in the above would be clearer? Also, shouldn't this be dependent upon sane_behavior? Thanks. -- tejun