From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751752AbdHPOeI (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Aug 2017 10:34:08 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:50760 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751575AbdHPOeH (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Aug 2017 10:34:07 -0400 DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com DA23FC0467D7 Authentication-Results: ext-mx07.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: ext-mx07.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=longman@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpuset: Allow v2 behavior in v1 cgroup To: Tejun Heo Cc: Li Zefan , Johannes Weiner , Jonathan Corbet , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org References: <1502818040-9967-1-git-send-email-longman@redhat.com> <20170816142926.GC4087514@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com> From: Waiman Long Organization: Red Hat Message-ID: Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 10:34:05 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170816142926.GC4087514@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.31]); Wed, 16 Aug 2017 14:34:07 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 08/16/2017 10:29 AM, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, Waiman. > > On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 01:27:20PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: >> + cpuset_v2_mode= [KNL] Enable cpuset v2 behavior in cpuset v1 cgroups. >> + In v2 mode, the cpus and mems can be restored to >> + their original values after a removal-addition >> + event sequence. >> + 0: default value, cpuset v1 keeps legacy behavior. >> + 1: cpuset v1 behaves like cpuset v2. >> + > It feels weird to make this a kernel boot param when all other options > are specified on mount time. Is there a reason why this can't be a > mount option too? > > Thanks. > Yes, we can certainly make this a mount option instead of a boot time parameter. BTW, where do we usually document the mount options for cgroup? Cheers, Longman