From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 7/9] cpuset: Expose cpus.effective and mems.effective on cgroup v2 root Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2018 08:58:23 -0700 Message-ID: <20180703155823.GS533219@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com> 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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: 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:user-agent; bh=nii9mXkoQMCWlubnGZW1vSGDl4mWcQn5io/dub3SdCo=; b=mMbjnSkb1YTbJVSZVMLSG2YYrNCxAdx1Th+DNOidqVgr8ZZITfQUxADeFDB7Sw/mNI Pr0b4XxNNSbnAtkVidmJhSvW5DFMA/BSXYaNJtCMU53e0B1+dter1johTak6nunifBmr /y+BZ6B7mmWKMb/EImvgLSYbYYMMmKIP52bqz6Mf9ZtX0Fial94ds9EjyhhDyMRY6IbN rAg8qTyF1Vl0az2qAFD8J3C3rVJJWpo1xO1Dwo8edpa535aWDf28loucOsoBeOGtb7Oc L3PwqTtwSTUc0Ax1T5QP4a56OVVsasRXJKFTQqv/lOkdvSbuzlsop6yssDW9IeoBNpIQ Op6A== Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Waiman Long Cc: Li Zefan , Johannes Weiner , Peter Zijlstra , 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 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. Thanks. -- tejun From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on archive.lwn.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.9 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,T_DKIM_INVALID autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by archive.lwn.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F265C7DE6E for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2018 15:58:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753357AbeGCP62 (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Jul 2018 11:58:28 -0400 Received: from mail-yw0-f195.google.com ([209.85.161.195]:41461 "EHLO mail-yw0-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752905AbeGCP60 (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Jul 2018 11:58:26 -0400 Received: by mail-yw0-f195.google.com with SMTP id j5-v6so866657ywe.8; Tue, 03 Jul 2018 08:58:26 -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:user-agent; bh=nii9mXkoQMCWlubnGZW1vSGDl4mWcQn5io/dub3SdCo=; b=mMbjnSkb1YTbJVSZVMLSG2YYrNCxAdx1Th+DNOidqVgr8ZZITfQUxADeFDB7Sw/mNI Pr0b4XxNNSbnAtkVidmJhSvW5DFMA/BSXYaNJtCMU53e0B1+dter1johTak6nunifBmr /y+BZ6B7mmWKMb/EImvgLSYbYYMMmKIP52bqz6Mf9ZtX0Fial94ds9EjyhhDyMRY6IbN rAg8qTyF1Vl0az2qAFD8J3C3rVJJWpo1xO1Dwo8edpa535aWDf28loucOsoBeOGtb7Oc L3PwqTtwSTUc0Ax1T5QP4a56OVVsasRXJKFTQqv/lOkdvSbuzlsop6yssDW9IeoBNpIQ Op6A== 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:user-agent; bh=nii9mXkoQMCWlubnGZW1vSGDl4mWcQn5io/dub3SdCo=; b=pnh35WmJMXJD0RNev7v7BNM1b5j+HUDvMk0BwsE1KeU4d2i+0kHM50G1yvO/uiKEHU erFxcq//uSCPaLGMSmRvtFIq1ABqC/D+8C8+R0gkNSEPVlvfJR9gRAzLLDiaclBslv21 NdaqrpEEl08XikreRhyIeKhcZgqIDtlx8sOIreySlyMW5kuW/i0zeur7h0ZlYQPoccls xIBLUD0D2fEcWMHtBOHEhA7MZjKQ8LOrYPhvsp5bSH5/kFOSPO2VxN1C9aUnWJQIpYiz o5jAxxqSjs91FWLHl4K86vqvdfOw3LQSBRck1vj3cp5SYPgjVsW0m/6Q/aT17pTpiAzS 4H8w== X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E3J7tyhuV1mEfBIJEs86dI1fZh9fYsZb9NNiIk4H1tmeF/cGFz9 wTLsY0wFlb2BKfWozB9vdp5S28qQ X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpcL5R/P/QvVWEvuFkOaXLP0YafGFNUzMukmRD601cH1dFBGT1d27YuXwhIWeEgzWeQ8RpFUJA== X-Received: by 2002:a81:a692:: with SMTP id d140-v6mr2883465ywh.50.1530633506055; Tue, 03 Jul 2018 08:58:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([2620:10d:c091:200::3:a4be]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l3-v6sm449477ywm.103.2018.07.03.08.58.24 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 03 Jul 2018 08:58:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2018 08:58:23 -0700 From: Tejun Heo To: Waiman Long Cc: Li Zefan , Johannes Weiner , Peter Zijlstra , 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: <20180703155823.GS533219@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com> 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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-doc-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org 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. Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html