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=-2.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,T_DKIM_INVALID, USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham 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 72C10C468C6 for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2018 13:52:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 181C820673 for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2018 13:52:51 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b="WrG0IRrJ" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 181C820673 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1731577AbeGSOgG (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Jul 2018 10:36:06 -0400 Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:38638 "EHLO merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1730451AbeGSOgF (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Jul 2018 10:36:05 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=merlin.20170209; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version: References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=9y3ZpgYtdHV1f5BZq6DQpPBciG7Ugn3PjPKzl3567fA=; b=WrG0IRrJDAoztD1ygNlKx0ZMy H4cajpz3fEjWshpAWul5YTB+vvRw2sl+8Wqp+j/CqSN8K8U9bQ9QnPWQ0AUAKi10+KrRmu2vRDbw7 sO/4dh2KBbnwmWG3tWPINmKMNG9q9lLF/a2B4TUJXDU+2npeNJ7db91ABeBAioZqGB7kzldpesq9P NwT/N7vgtbzyD9cl9C9WuIpzaPvPdoCX2FuS6Hehq10QPf8dcwrfzB8uYauKoJlWfxBwU3op3h1j+ 3Qmgwp7L9cS3OCKzyrvmvWUBKPCN4tUVC064E3G2LOWV2p5tJ4hRSpA9Rb7z2kU//Dfv8l8XUILDi GZNucCFNA==; Received: from j217100.upc-j.chello.nl ([24.132.217.100] helo=hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtpsa (Exim 4.90_1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1fg9M3-0003eS-BJ; Thu, 19 Jul 2018 13:52:28 +0000 Received: by hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B410B20289330; Thu, 19 Jul 2018 15:52:24 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 15:52:24 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra To: Tejun Heo Cc: Waiman Long , Li Zefan , Johannes Weiner , Ingo Molnar , cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com, pjt@google.com, luto@amacapital.net, Mike Galbraith , torvalds@linux-foundation.org, Roman Gushchin , Juri Lelli , Patrick Bellasi Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 7/9] cpuset: Expose cpus.effective and mems.effective on cgroup v2 root Message-ID: <20180719135224.GE2494@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <1529825440-9574-1-git-send-email-longman@redhat.com> <1529825440-9574-8-git-send-email-longman@redhat.com> <20180702165322.GI533219@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com> <20180703155823.GS533219@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180703155823.GS533219@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.0 (2018-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 08:58:23AM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, Waiman. > > On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 08:41:31AM +0800, Waiman Long wrote: > > > So, effective changing when enabling partition on a child feels wrong > > > to me. It's supposed to contain what's actually allowed to the cgroup > > > from its parent and that shouldn't change regardless of how those > > > resources are used. It's still given to the cgroup from its parent. > > > > Another way to work around this issue is to expose the reserved_cpus in > > the parent for holding CPUs that can taken by a chid partition. That > > will require adding one more cpuset file for those cgroups that are > > partition roots. > > Yeah, that should work. > > > I don't mind restricting that to the first level children for now. That > > does restrict where we can put the container root if we want a separate > > partition for a container. Let's hear if others have any objection about > > that. > > As currently implemented, partioning locks away the cpus which should > be a system level decision, not container level, so it makes sense to > me that it is only available to system root. I'm terribly confused, what?! Why would a container not be allowed to create partitions for its various RT workloads?