[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Z4lgLxZXjoKuMh3r@slm.duckdns.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2025 09:38:23 -1000
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Waiman Long <llong@...hat.com>
Cc: Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Chen Ridong <chenridong@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cgroup/cpuset: Move procfs cpuset attribute under
cgroup-v1.c
On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 02:15:00PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
>
> On 1/16/25 12:25 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 03:05:32PM +0100, Michal Koutný wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 08:40:56AM -0500, Waiman Long <llong@...hat.com> wrote:
> > > > I do have some reservation in taking out /proc/<pid>/cpuset by default as
> > > > CPUSETS_V1 is off by default. This may break some existing user scripts.
> > > Cannot be /proc/$pid/cpuset declared a v1 feature?
> > > Similar to cpuset fs (that is under CPUSETS_V1). If there's a breakage,
> > > the user is not non-v1 ready and CPUSETS_V1 must be enabled.
> > I think we can try given that the config is providing an exit path. After
> > all, users who were depending on cpusets on v1 are in the same boat.
>
> I am not totally against this, but I think we need to make the relationship
> between the CPUSETS_V1 config and /proc/<pid>/cpuset file more visible if we
> want to go this route. We should update the help text of CPUSETS_V1 config
> entry to emphasize this.
+1
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists