[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180530130555.GD3320@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2018 15:05:55 +0200
From: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>
To: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-team@...com, pjt@...gle.com, luto@...capital.net,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>,
Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 0/7] Enable cpuset controller in default hierarchy
On 30/05/18 08:56, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 05/30/2018 06:13 AM, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 29/05/18 09:41, Waiman Long wrote:
> >> v9:
> >> - Rename cpuset.sched.domain to cpuset.sched.domain_root to better
> >> identify its purpose as the root of a new scheduling domain or
> >> partition.
> >> - Clarify in the document about the purpose of domain_root and
> >> load_balance. Using domain_root is th only way to create new
> >> partition.
> >> - Fix a lockdep warning in update_isolated_cpumask() function.
> >> - Add a new patch to eliminate call to generate_sched_domains() for
> >> v2 when a change in cpu list does not touch a domain_root.
> > I was playing with this and ended up with the situation below:
> >
> > g1/cgroup.controllers:cpuset
> > g1/cgroup.events:populated 0
> > g1/cgroup.max.depth:max
> > g1/cgroup.max.descendants:max
> > g1/cgroup.stat:nr_descendants 1
> > g1/cgroup.stat:nr_dying_descendants 0
> > g1/cgroup.subtree_control:cpuset
> > g1/cgroup.type:domain
> > g1/cpuset.cpus:0-5 <---
> > g1/cpuset.cpus.effective:0-5
> > g1/cpuset.mems.effective:0-1
> > g1/cpuset.sched.domain_root:1 <---
> > g1/cpuset.sched.load_balance:1
> > g1/cpu.stat:usage_usec 0
> > g1/cpu.stat:user_usec 0
> > g1/cpu.stat:system_usec 0
> > g1/g11/cgroup.events:populated 0
> > g1/g11/cgroup.max.descendants:max
> > g1/g11/cpu.stat:usage_usec 0
> > g1/g11/cpu.stat:user_usec 0
> > g1/g11/cpu.stat:system_usec 0
> > g1/g11/cgroup.type:domain
> > g1/g11/cgroup.stat:nr_descendants 0
> > g1/g11/cgroup.stat:nr_dying_descendants 0
> > g1/g11/cpuset.cpus.effective:0-5
> > g1/g11/cgroup.controllers:cpuset
> > g1/g11/cpuset.sched.load_balance:1
> > g1/g11/cpuset.mems.effective:0-1
> > g1/g11/cpuset.cpus:6-11 <---
> > g1/g11/cgroup.max.depth:max
> > g1/g11/cpuset.sched.domain_root:0
> >
> > Should this be allowed? I was expecting subgroup g11 should be
> > restricted to a subset of g1's cpus.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > - Juri
>
> That shouldn't be allowed.The code is probably missing some checks that
> should have been done. What was the sequence of commands leading to the
> above configuration?
This is a E5-2609 v3 (12 cores) Fedora Server box (with systemd, so
first command is needed to be able to use cpuset controller with v2,
IIUC):
# umount /sys/fs/cgroup/cpuset
# cd /sys/fs/cgroup/unified/
# echo "+cpuset" >cgroup.subtree_control
# mkdir g1
# echo 0-5 >g1/cpuset.cpus
# echo 6-11 >init.scope/cpuset.cpus
# echo 6-11 >machine.slice/cpuset.cpus
# echo 6-11 >system.slice/cpuset.cpus
# echo 6-11 >user.slice/cpuset.cpus
# echo 1 >g1/cpuset.sched.domain_root
# mkdir g1/g11
# echo "+cpuset" > g1/cgroup.subtree_control
# echo 6-11 >g1/g11/cpuset.cpus
# grep -R . g1/*
That should be it. Am I doing something wrong?
Thanks,
- Juri
Powered by blists - more mailing lists