From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Tejun Heo <tj-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/11] cpuset: separate configured masks and efffective
 masks
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 11:33:28 -0400
Message-ID: <20130823153328.GD3277@htj.dyndns.org>
References: <52148F52.0@huawei.com>
 <52148FCA.8010704@huawei.com>
 <20130821140846.GH19286@mtj.dyndns.org>
 <52171367.90005@huawei.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Return-path: <cgroups-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version
         :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent;
        bh=gqvK07C+piIxZqoLs28L2rBRuWq1J+uRTD9hXU00cGU=;
        b=qtI+lPrD6a6kXx+GFnuUm+xX4Ygu1hcSx8ihRpBfUFX6OxyWb3nnhYKbOhONhEpUPB
         ivL6y3Suj4O9QX7IMaWlYmw4RUUaZJN5QRd6KuQmiFDPHrxiZyCnmXyGZsszO/M6nh7s
         jzPW9dQUyD/K9j0+HLSuFJucV680DskO/qQ88h/GDPAMlc6NCoF0J1kMhey/57NNWbNx
         NIRNNLPCLY1s0Qo0fpdzs/P+25BEXv1B4iTkJEvFv0tzQDtzMcI13ueRJUTOB85iCsIO
         MWiTHYewS68SNaGHlTRThhIYcwoZZlAhov0irumjMEV1xtTQ3B4+9Y30z33NX/dCog51
         oueg==
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <52171367.90005-hv44wF8Li93QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
Sender: cgroups-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
List-ID: <cgroups.vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: Li Zefan <lizefan-hv44wF8Li93QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>, Cgroups <cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>, Containers <containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org>

Hello, Li.

On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 03:46:47PM +0800, Li Zefan wrote:
> On 2013/8/21 22:08, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 06:00:42PM +0800, Li Zefan wrote:
> >> @@ -2261,7 +2271,8 @@ static void cpuset_hotplug_workfn(struct work_struct *work)
> >>  	/* synchronize mems_allowed to N_MEMORY */
> >>  	if (mems_updated) {
> >>  		mutex_lock(&callback_mutex);
> >> -		top_cpuset.mems_allowed = new_mems;
> >> +		if (!sane)
> >> +			top_cpuset.mems_allowed = new_mems;
> > 
> > Can you please further explain how the top cgroup behaves?
> > 
> 
> top_cpuset.cpus_allowed will always be cpu_active_mask if sane_behavior
> is not set, otherwise it will always be cpu_possible_mask. While
> top_cpuset.effective_cpus will always be cpu_active_mask in either
> case.

Just in case it wasn't clear, it'd be great if you can also explain
what's going on w.r.t. sane_behavior in the comments and patch
description.  Having dual modes of operation can always be quite
confusing so I think some documentation could be very beneficial.

Thanks!

-- 
tejun