[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f1168ddc-cb67-ecfd-6644-4963c857a0a0@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2021 21:14:01 -0400
From: Waiman Long <llong@...hat.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Waiman Long <llong@...hat.com>
Cc: Zefan Li <lizefan.x@...edance.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>, Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 5/6] cgroup/cpuset: Update description of
cpuset.cpus.partition in cgroup-v2.rst
On 8/27/21 7:35 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 06:50:10PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>> The cpu exclusivity rule is due to the setting of CPU_EXCLUSIVE bit. This is
>> a pre-existing condition unless you want to change how the
>> cpuset.cpu_exclusive works.
>>
>> So the new rules will be:
>>
>> 1) The "cpuset.cpus" is not empty and the list of CPUs are exclusive.
> Empty cpu list can be considered an exclusive one.
It doesn't make sense to me to have a partition with no cpu configured
at all. I very much prefer the users to set cpuset.cpus first before
turning it into a partition.
>
>> 2) The parent cgroup is a partition root (can be an invalid one).
> Does this mean a partition parent can't stop being a partition if one or
> more of its children become partitions? If so, it violates the rule that a
> descendant shouldn't be able to restrict what its ancestors can do.
No. As I said in the documentation, transitioning from partition root to
member is allowed. Against, it is illogical to allow a cpuset to become
a potential partition if it parent is not even a partition root at all.
In the case that the parent is reverted back to a member, the child
partitions will stay invalid forever unless the parent become a valid
partition again.
>
>> 3) The "cpuset.cpus" is a subset of the parent's cpuset.cpus.allowed.
> Why not just go by effective? This would mean that a parent can't withdraw
> CPUs from its allowed set once descendants are configured. Restrictions like
> this are fine when the entire hierarchy is configured by a single entity but
> become awkward when configurations are multi-tiered, automated and dynamic.
The original rule is to be based on effective cpus. However, to properly
handle the case of allowing offlined cpus to be included in the
partition, I have to change it to cpu_allowed instead. I can certainly
change it back to effective if you prefer.
>
>> 4) No child cgroup with cpuset enabled.
> idk, maybe? I'm having a hard time seeing the point in adding these
> restrictions when the state transitions are asynchronous anyway. Would it
> help if we try to separate what's absoluately and technically necessary and
> what seems reasonable or high bar and try to justify why each of the latter
> should be added?
This rule is there mainly for ease of implementation. Otherwise, I need
to add additional code to handle the conversion of child cpusets which
can be rather complex and require a lot more debugging. This rule will
no longer apply once the cpuset becomes a partition root.
Cheers,
Longman
Powered by blists - more mailing lists