linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH cgroup/for-4.21 1/2] cpuset: Minor cgroup2 interface updates

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20181120154410.GQ2509588@devbig004.ftw2.facebook.com>
Date:   Tue, 20 Nov 2018 07:44:10 -0800
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>, Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH cgroup/for-4.21 1/2] cpuset: Minor cgroup2 interface
 updates

Hello, Peter.

On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 01:46:24PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Why though? The Changelog doesn't give rationale for the actual changes.

Ah yeah, sorry about that.

> And I'm not sure I agree with either one of them.
> 
> The partition is a scheduling feature;

So is everything with cpuset.cpus prefix.  They're all modifying how
scheduler handles the cpus.

> and I like 0/1 much better to type, so why not allow that?

Mostly for consistency and it's generally better to keep interfaces
minimal - e.g. what if we need to add support for more key words to
the file?  Would we assign incrementing integers to them?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun