Re: [RFC/POC]: Make cpuset.cpus.effective independent of cpuset.cpus

[Petr Malat <oss@malat.biz>]

Hi,
On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 09:41:43PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 3/21/24 17:33, Petr Malat wrote:
> > Hi!
> > I have tried to use the new remote cgroup feature and I find the
> > interface unfriendly - requiring cpuset.cpus.exclusive to be a subset
> > of cpuset.cpus requires the program, which wants to isolate a CPU for
> > some RT activity, to know what CPUs all ancestor cgroups want to use.
> > 
> > For example consider cgroup hierarchy c1/c2/c3 where my program is
> > running and wants to isolate CPU N, so
> >   - It creates new c1/c2/c3/rt cgroup
> >   - It adds N to cpuset.cpus.exclusive of rt, c3 and c2 cgroup
> >     (cpuset.cpus.exclusive |= N)
> >   - Now it should do the same with cpuset.cpus, but that's not possible
> >     if ancestors cpuset.cpus is empty, which is common configuration and
> >     there is no good way how to set it in that case.
> > 
> > My proposal is to
> >   - Not require cpuset.cpus.exclusive to be a subset of cpuset.cpus
> >   - Create remote cgroup if cpuset.cpus is empty and local cgroup if it's
> >     set, to give the user explicit control on what cgroup is created.
> 
> I think we can make cpuset.cpus.exclusive independent of cpuset.cpus as a
> separate hierarchy to make creation of remote partitions easier. I need some
> more time to think through it. I don't think your test patch is enough for
> making this change. BTW, you confuse cpuset.cpus.exclusive with
> cpuset.cpus.effective which are two completely different things.

The exclusive/effective confusion is a copy and paste mistake in the
description, the code should make cpuset.cpus.exclusive independent on
cpuset.cpus, how is described in the initial mail. I have pasted it
from my clipboard history and apparently haven't read the whole string.
  P.