Re: [PATCH] cpuset: Enforce that a child's cpus must be a subset of the parent

Waiman Long
2018-05-31T16:28:45Z

On 05/31/2018 11:58 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 09:22:23AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>>>>>>> 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?
>>>> .
>>> Sure. IIRC this was suggested by Tejun as he had done something similar to devcgroup.
>>>
>> OK, let wait until Tejun has time to chime in. For me, it just look
>> weird to be able to do that.
>>
>> Another corner case that is not handled is when cpus_allowed is empty.
>> In this case, it falls back to the parent's effective cpus. On the other
>> hand, it can also be argued that an empty cpus_allowed is a transient
>> state and a cpuset shouldn't have cpus undefined while creating children.
> Tying together what's configured and what's applied may feel
> attractive on the surface but it's a long term headache.
>
> * It's inconsistent with what other controllers are doing. All the
> limit resource configs declare the upper bound the specific cgroup
> can consume regardless of what's actually available to it. They
> limit but don't guarantee access.
>
> * Which decouples a given cgroup's configurations from its ancestors',
> which allows an ancestor to take away resources that it granted
> before and then also giving it back later. No matter what you do,
> if you couple configs of cgroup hierarchy, you end up restricting
> what an ancestor can do to its sub-hierarchy, which can quickly
> become a difficult operational headache.
>
> So, let's please stay away from it even if that means a bit of
> overhead in terms of interface.
>
> Thanks.
>
I am fine with that argument. I will update the patch documentation to
include this information as I think it is important for the users to be
aware of that.

Cheers,
Longman