[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZKy0QCBBFf3JZXuh@slm.duckdns.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2023 15:45:36 -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>,
Mrunal Patel <mpatel@...hat.com>,
Ryan Phillips <rphillips@...hat.com>,
Brent Rowsell <browsell@...hat.com>,
Peter Hunt <pehunt@...hat.com>, Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/9] cgroup/cpuset: Support remote partitions
Hello,
On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 09:38:12PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> I don't want to add another cpuset.cpus.exclusive.effective control file.
> One possibility is to keep another effective masks in the struct cpuset and
> list both exclusive cpus set by the user and the effective ones side by
> side, like "<cpus> (<effective_cpus>)" if they differ or some other format.
> What do you think?
Hmm... if we go for separate effective mask, I think it'd be better to stay
consistent with cpuset.cpus[.effective]. That's the convention both
cpuset.cpus and cpuset.mems already follow. I'm not sure what we'd gain by
deviating.
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists