lkml.org 
[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
From
Date
On 07/20/2018 11:56 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Peter.
>
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 05:44:54PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> 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.
>> So the implementation does not set ownership of the 'partition' file to
>> that of the parent directory? Because _that_ is what I understood from
>> Waiman (many versions ago). And that _does_ allow delegation to work
>> nicely.
> So, that part isn't the problem. The problem is that if we allow
> partitioning nested further away from ancestor, the descendant would
> be able to take away reources from the removed ancestor. Waiman
> avoids this problem by only allowing partitions to nest but then it's
> kinda weird cuz it's just a separate tree.

The rationale behind the current design is that a parent is allowed to
create a child partition if it fully owns all the cpus it has. That is
true only if it is a partition itself. IOW, making a cpuset a partition
won't affect any ancestors other than the parent.


>>>>> 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.
>> So is hierarchical behaviour; but you seem willing to forgo that.
> Well, we do have root or first-level only things. Things just need to
> be properly delegatable when they're hierarchical (and things should
> be hierarchical only when that actually means something). While not
> desirable, considering the history, accomodating this specific usage
> that way seems acceptable to me.

I am not against the idea of making it hierarchical eventually. I am
just hoping to get thing going by merging the patchset in its current
form and then we can make it hierarchical in a followup patch.

Cheers,
Longman

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-07-20 18:19    [W:0.085 / U:1.076 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site