Re: [PATCH v10 7/8] cgroup/cpuset: Update description of cpuset.cpus.partition in cgroup-v2.rst

Michal Koutný
2022-05-04T11:25:52Z

Hello.

On Tue, May 03, 2022 at 12:21:48PM -0400, Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> wrote:
> Documentation/admin-guide/cgroup-v2.rst | 145 +++++++++++++-----------
> 1 file changed, 79 insertions(+), 66 deletions(-)

A note across various lines -- it seems your new text accidentally mixes
both spaces and tabs for indentation.

> diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/cgroup-v2.rst b/Documentation/admin-guide/cgroup-v2.rst
> index 69d7a6983f78..94e1e3771830 100644
> --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/cgroup-v2.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/cgroup-v2.rst
> [...]
> + The value shown in "cpuset.cpus.effective" of a partition root is
> + the CPUs that the parent partition root can dedicate to the new
> + partition root. They are subtracted from "cpuset.cpus.effective"
> + of the parent and may be different from "cpuset.cpus"

I find this paragraph a bit hard to comprehend (I read it as it talks
about three levels of cgroups (parent, child, grandparent). It is
correct but I'd suggect following formulation (where I additionally
simplifed it by talking about "available" cpus):

> The value shown in "cpuset.cpus.effective" of a partition root is
> the CPUs that the partition root can dedicate to a potential new child
> partition root. The new child subtracts available CPUs from its parent
> "cpuset.cpus.effective".

> + For a partition root to become valid, the following conditions
> + must be met.
> +
> + 1) The "cpuset.cpus" is exclusive, i.e. they are not shared by
> + any of its siblings (exclusivity rule).
> + 2) The parent cgroup is a valid partition root.
> + 3) The "cpuset.cpus" is not empty and must contain at least
> + one of the CPUs from parent's "cpuset.cpus", i.e. they overlap.
> + 4) The "cpuset.cpus.effective" must be a subset of "cpuset.cpus"
> + and cannot be empty unless there is no task associated with
> + this partition.

This sounds good to me.

> + Care must be taken to change a valid partition root to "member"
> + as all its child partitions, if present, will become invalid.

This does not talk about recovering. Is it intentional? (I.e. to left
implementation defined)

Except the remarks above, I find the concepts described here good. I'll
reply to implementation separately & later.

Regards,
Michal