From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 7/8] cgroup/cpuset: Update description of cpuset.cpus.partition in cgroup-v2.rst Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2022 04:10:29 +0900 Message-ID: References: <20220510153413.400020-1-longman@redhat.com> <20220510153413.400020-8-longman@redhat.com> <404171dc-0da3-21f2-5003-9718f875e967@redhat.com> <20220613142452.GB6910@blackbody.suse.cz> <20220613175548.GB21665@blackbody.suse.cz> <20220614115345.GA6771@blackbody.suse.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to; bh=/TJYBcpsxpHM1dgljke9KHv7g4SupUF3o95Sw1aZ2ck=; b=IUrCqExbfNSEqdj1+aclN5lVCX6iP7eBPxz3UnA29I42X7w8qUJC0d2QFa6lECfvHS lTMdErf6FACs1/hyp38L86tGz+o787pLf2VIheb7iIKAGcJlc9+ImxpPc6dZHKPr2Lnd 297Swn9MhvVXOe5pLyL9hyobmlUtJUylIgtVuWFNUy7M/cvy0Ei9a+7/6RNLP/vuaWpm qPXLfyJ7VkpxIpiy0dSvQGEwS2wO1IikzptCMphwHEF+yGlRha2BCj6vVKJloizO0jzV wtWURRXun0tZKmoLu2aju0/0SznVwcWbO33ww6x17xU68Xd6vEBZdnna3JSmuqObPHbN 196g== Sender: Tejun Heo Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20220614115345.GA6771-9OudH3eul5jcvrawFnH+a6VXKuFTiq87@public.gmane.org> List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" To: Michal =?iso-8859-1?Q?Koutn=FD?= Cc: Waiman Long , Zefan Li , Johannes Weiner , Jonathan Corbet , Shuah Khan , cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-doc-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-kselftest-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Andrew Morton , Roman Gushchin , Phil Auld , Peter Zijlstra , Juri Lelli , Frederic Weisbecker , Marcelo Tosatti Hello, On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 01:53:45PM +0200, Michal Koutn=FD wrote: > On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 08:00:56AM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote: > > Yeah, I don't know why this part is different from any other errors tha= t the > > parent can make. >=20 > It's different because a write to parent's cpuset.cpus is independent of > whether cpuset.cpus of its children are exclusive or not. > In an extreme case the children may be non-exclusive >=20 > parent cpuset.cpus=3D0-3 // valid partition > `- child_1 cpuset.cpus=3D0-1 // invalid partition > `- child_2 cpuset.cpus=3D1-2 // invalid partition >=20 > but the parent can still be a valid partition (thanks to cpu no. 3 in > the example above). >=20 > Do I miss anything? What I'm trying to say is that cpuset.cpus of child_1 and child_2 are owned by the parent, so a feature which blocks siblings from intersecting each other doesn't make whole lot of sense because all those files are under the control of the parent who would have the power to enable or disable the restrition anyway. The partition mode file is owned by the parent too, right? So, all these are to be configured by the same entity and the errors can be reported the same way, no? Thanks. --=20 tejun