On 2/9/26 8:39 PM, Chen Ridong wrote:
On 2026/2/10 4:20, Waiman Long wrote:
On 2/9/26 2:23 AM, Chen Ridong wrote:
On 2026/2/7 4:37, Waiman Long wrote:
+static cpumask_var_t isolated_hk_cpus; /* T */
Can we get this from isolation.c instead?
The name probably shouldn't include 'hk', since it refers to the inverse
(housekeeping CPUs) of isolated CPUs, right?
The housekeeping_update() will create an inverse of the pass-in isolated
cpumasks. As for the name, I add hk to indicate this cpumask is for passing to
housekeeping_update() to update housekeeping cpumask. It is not directly related
to the cpumasks in sched/isolation.c. Please let me know if you have a
suggestion for the name.
I understand the intent. However, when reading both cpuset.c and
sched/isolation.c, it can be confusing whether isolated_hk_cpus is an inverse
mask, since in sched/isolation.c “hk” consistently refers to the inverse.
How about isolated_cpus_applied?
Applied to what? I did add a comment to describe isolated_hk_cpus as a
copy of isolated_cpus to be passed to housekeeping_update(). "hk" in the
name refers to its role for being passed to that function. I can't use
"isolated_cpus" for now as it may get modified by CPU hotplug
concurrently. In the future, if CPU hotplug no longer modify
isolated_cpus, I will remove isolated_hk_cpus and pass isolated_cpus
directly to housekeeping_update(). I don't think we need to spend extra
time bikeshedding what the right name should be.
Cheers,
Longman
