On 6/20/25 8:22 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
The block subsystem prevents running the workqueue to isolated CPUs,
including those defined by cpuset isolated partitions. Since
HK_TYPE_DOMAIN will soon contain both and be subject to runtime
modifications, synchronize against housekeeping using the relevant lock.
For full support of cpuset changes, the block subsystem may need to
propagate changes to isolated cpumask through the workqueue in the
future.
Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
block/blk-mq.c | 6 +++++-
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/block/blk-mq.c b/block/blk-mq.c
index 4806b867e37d..ece3369825fe 100644
--- a/block/blk-mq.c
+++ b/block/blk-mq.c
@@ -4237,12 +4237,16 @@ static void blk_mq_map_swqueue(struct request_queue *q)
/*
* Rule out isolated CPUs from hctx->cpumask to avoid
- * running block kworker on isolated CPUs
+ * running block kworker on isolated CPUs.
+ * FIXME: cpuset should propagate further changes to isolated CPUs
+ * here.
*/
+ housekeeping_lock();
for_each_cpu(cpu, hctx->cpumask) {
if (cpu_is_isolated(cpu))
cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, hctx->cpumask);
}
+ housekeeping_unlock();
/*
* Initialize batch roundrobin counts
Isn't it expected that function names have the subsystem name as a
prefix? The function name "housekeeping_lock" is not a good name because
that name does not make it clear what subsystem that function affects.
Additionally, "housekeeping" is very vague. Please choose a better name.
Thanks,
Bart.
