From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpuset: Enforce that a child's cpus must be a subset of the parent Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 10:26:13 +0200 Message-ID: <20180531082613.GF12180@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <1527687991-1431-1-git-send-email-longman@redhat.com> <5B0F4F09.9050100@huawei.com> <5B0FAE72.1090204@huawei.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: 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=g8oZOuCKEcfcRxMjUHBZ+tzdwA0tlNGQQV0/o6Azeqw=; b=VZoVb2Db1S8y5usO+5eKyNhLt ORfC3m65/B1fQHORo5DXii2VpyrqZWmcjuO8JxcNjZZILpvjlBounbkJYI7RzwJe4v7iWrA34+Lxh aumZ6VhoBx/ZPIca9uuoAd1X7njLhw3Cds1oOUej8xJTxSPT4KAmCRz54WragemTCAi6TA4mOXHuf lfBQclwS/LeP5Ke4SXc4ss44tw8ES3A3ucIVse/p0WfIIZ8hidZX9UpyJYRmXhfxs/gv0NIWMkyTi 8PuPMR/jLEOeVeFw2s++Pe8wSJEUBxcL0h9d1htf/0TP/p4kuOzyJ2Z99edJV2p9DXOAi4SbdyZoD Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5B0FAE72.1090204@huawei.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Zefan Li Cc: Waiman Long , Tejun Heo , 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 On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 04:12:34PM +0800, Zefan Li wrote: > On 2018/5/31 9:25, Zefan Li wrote: > > Hi Waiman, > > > > On 2018/5/30 21:46, Waiman Long wrote: > >> It was found that the cpuset.cpus could contain CPUs that are not listed > >> in their parent's cpu list as shown by the command sequence below: > >> > >> # echo "+cpuset" >cgroup.subtree_control > >> # mkdir g1 > >> # echo 0-5 >g1/cpuset.cpus > >> # mkdir g1/g11 > >> # echo "+cpuset" > g1/cgroup.subtree_control > >> # echo 6-11 >g1/g11/cpuset.cpus > >> # grep -R . g1 | grep "\.cpus" > >> g1/cpuset.cpus:0-5 > >> g1/cpuset.cpus.effective:0-5 > >> g1/g11/cpuset.cpus:6-11 > >> g1/g11/cpuset.cpus.effective:0-5 > >> > >> As the intersection of g11's cpus and that of g1 is empty, the effective > >> cpus of g11 is just that of g1. The check in update_cpumask() is now > >> corrected to make sure that cpus in a child cpus must be a subset of > >> its parent's cpus. The error "write error: Invalid argument" will now > >> be reported in the above case. > >> > > > > We made the distinction between user-configured CPUs and effective CPUs > > in commit 7e88291beefbb758, so actually it's not a bug. > > > > I remember the original reason is to support restoration of the original > cpu after cpu offline->online. We use user-configured CPUs to remember > if the cpu should be restored in the cpuset after it's onlined. AFAICT you can do that and still have the child a subset of the parent, no?