On Sat, Feb 21, 2026 at 01:54:18PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> The current cpuset partition code is able to dynamically update
> the sched domains of a running system and the corresponding
> HK_TYPE_DOMAIN housekeeping cpumask to perform what is essentally the
> "isolcpus=domain,..." boot command line feature at run time.
>
> The housekeeping cpumask update requires flushing a number of different
> workqueues which may not be safe with cpus_read_lock() held as the
> workqueue flushing code may acquire cpus_read_lock() or acquiring locks
> which have locking dependency with cpus_read_lock() down the chain. Below
> is an example of such circular locking problem.
>
> ======================================================
> WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
> 6.18.0-test+ #2 Tainted: G S
> ------------------------------------------------------
> test_cpuset_prs/10971 is trying to acquire lock:
> ffff888112ba4958 ((wq_completion)sync_wq){+.+.}-{0:0}, at:
> touch_wq_lockdep_map+0x7a/0x180
>
> but task is already holding lock:
> ffffffffae47f450 (cpuset_mutex){+.+.}-{4:4}, at:
> cpuset_partition_write+0x85/0x130
>
> which lock already depends on the new lock.
>
> the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
> -> #4 (cpuset_mutex){+.+.}-{4:4}:
> -> #3 (cpu_hotplug_lock){++++}-{0:0}:
> -> #2 (rtnl_mutex){+.+.}-{4:4}:
> -> #1 ((work_completion)(&arg.work)){+.+.}-{0:0}:
> -> #0 ((wq_completion)sync_wq){+.+.}-{0:0}:
>
> Chain exists of:
> (wq_completion)sync_wq --> cpu_hotplug_lock --> cpuset_mutex
Which workqueue is involved here that holds rtnl_mutex?
Is this an existing problem or added test code?
Thanks.
