From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3776C49EAB for ; Sat, 26 Jun 2021 10:53:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB3B06192F for ; Sat, 26 Jun 2021 10:53:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229934AbhFZK4M (ORCPT ); Sat, 26 Jun 2021 06:56:12 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:43280 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229518AbhFZK4L (ORCPT ); Sat, 26 Jun 2021 06:56:11 -0400 Received: from mail-qv1-xf30.google.com (mail-qv1-xf30.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f30]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3DFA3C061574; Sat, 26 Jun 2021 03:53:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qv1-xf30.google.com with SMTP id j6so6009826qvp.3; Sat, 26 Jun 2021 03:53:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=5IakmMrURhycOrgMfR07LYIjzM4DIOC86+dJLV+QXtE=; b=tJM12ZzFZGep9dgrfo5utS8xjiFj8xNgXdKhGD3A9SmaJVv55z2dbAFR71Tbmn6Sea IygyNuEsD+k0js/M1w4rmHPEwGAIilhGD+DNFHa8L+iIXBZipBJ9EHHHqNYTIXeg4Fex 1EG9vUpbZN5Quo1q3/NZTu9X6LlyML8XgkDM1Ubf3CVPwWLHNe1HfkCnMVt449oWv9zB ei8oGQnjwQ3R4FpWQKR9KiXEY+NSGqxidKhNSsGscePbTanOWZrgBfdBgs9Ls2RuMv7Z qg7pkDppgBYjycxMvMR5DhVz7Fk/CB+AT5rvnP0oGp3kI/M7eHMhvJS8OX7yYZPQDhsr CAZg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id :references:mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=5IakmMrURhycOrgMfR07LYIjzM4DIOC86+dJLV+QXtE=; b=fqwK3xMRHPj0p1gJUnEp7UPn3xII2DpJ6RCjPbUlqp0lb8Os9fTBcE70BTEOF2nNZu lKmtbB+6BgnAPV+9icpN82lBkZ96XFsfxDSFQ08ldXfyBKYMmC0eHtFmcb+ueAzqf8j/ yYkF4O73JLKZFCCZJs2q/5S5lSE0cxJcY/TjhFpB9XsNcY+90Jzs/Db2MCyz5UrYH1Rn ojOTIQjhqtovick9gM8A/2O19Noo+Hgr0DorHNQs0pejx7UCIj/XUc1t0MxiyGqKxXiL F9EuzoXaIvEeRgVck85ZdmZ5AogGokHo59l6CLcHtkBd/81z3srvOh27foo5fwmao0qz qHVQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532E/+c8Jxw/ano0SF0fIDY993JvDd8yaY7o9S3aeYWc3L/QnUg/ aiF1HVDj5riIIRoojlvjAis= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxAO5H8E1B0+d8SzThxc1r9kU7/5m1zewXew59PcHar/YlNWyF8Ut7yR+4xSgYn0Oo3jNv58A== X-Received: by 2002:a0c:f543:: with SMTP id p3mr12291007qvm.58.1624704827706; Sat, 26 Jun 2021 03:53:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([199.192.137.73]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id i3sm5365745qtp.2.2021.06.26.03.53.47 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sat, 26 Jun 2021 03:53:47 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Tejun Heo Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2021 06:53:45 -0400 From: Tejun Heo To: Waiman Long Cc: Zefan Li , Johannes Weiner , Jonathan Corbet , Shuah Khan , cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Roman Gushchin , Phil Auld , Peter Zijlstra , Juri Lelli Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/6] cgroup/cpuset: Clarify the use of invalid partition root Message-ID: References: <20210621184924.27493-1-longman@redhat.com> <20210621184924.27493-3-longman@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210621184924.27493-3-longman@redhat.com> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello, Waiman. On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 02:49:20PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > 1) A partition root can't be changed to member if it has child partition > roots. > 2) Removing CPUs from cpuset.cpus that causes it to become invalid is > not allowed. I'm not a fan of this approach. No matter what we have to be able to handle CPU removals which are user-iniated operations anyway, so I don't see why we're adding a different way of handling a different set of operations. Just handle them the same? Thanks. -- tejun