[lkml]   [2018]   [Jul]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v11 7/9] cpuset: Expose cpus.effective and mems.effective on cgroup v2 root

On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 01:31:21PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 09:52:01AM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 11:52:46AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> > > BTW, the way the partition is currently implemented right now is that a
> > > child cannot be a partition root unless its parent is a partition root
> > > itself. That is to avoid turning on partition to affect ancestors
> > > further up the hierarchy than just the parent. So in the case of a
> > > container, it cannot allocate sub-partitions underneath it unless it is
> > > a partition itself. Will that solve your concern?
> >
> > Hmm... so a given ancestor must be able to both
> >
> > 1. control which cpus are moved into a partition in all of its
> > subtree.
> By virtue of the partition file being owned by the parent, this is
> already achived, no?

The currently proposed implementation is somewhere in the middle. It
kinda gets there by restricting a partition to be a child of another
partition, which may be okay but it does make the whole delegation
mechanism less useful.

> > 2. take away any given cpu from ist subtree.
> I really hate this obsession of yours and doubly so for partitions. But
> why would this currently not be allowed?

Well, sorry that you hate it. It's a fundamental architectural
constraint. If it can't satisfy that, it should't be in cgroup.



 \ /
  Last update: 2018-07-20 13:46    [W:0.120 / U:0.444 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site