[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180719165201.GU72677@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 09:52:01 -0700
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.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>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 7/9] cpuset: Expose cpus.effective and mems.effective
on cgroup v2 root
Hello,
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.
2. take away any given cpu from ist subtree.
Right now, I don't think it's achieving either, right?
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists