[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZDdG1K0kTETZMTCu@slm.duckdns.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 14:03:32 -1000
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cc: Zefan Li <lizefan.x@...edance.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] cgroup/cpuset: A new "isolcpus" paritition
Hello,
On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 04:33:29PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> I think we can. You mean having a new "cpuset.cpus.isolated" cgroupfs file.
> So there will be one in the root cgroup that defines all the isolated CPUs
> one can have. It is then distributed down the hierarchy and can be claimed
> only if a cgroup becomes an "isolated" partition. There will be a slight
Yeah, that seems a lot more congruent with the typical pattern.
> change in the semantics of an "isolated" partition, but I doubt there will
> be much users out there.
I haven't thought through it too hard but what prevents staying compatible
with the current behavior?
> If you are OK with this approach, I can modify my patch series to do that.
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists