From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Waiman Long Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 0/9] cpuset: Enable cpuset controller in default hierarchy Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 23:07:16 +0800 Message-ID: References: <1529295249-5207-1-git-send-email-longman@redhat.com> <20180618142036.GA13097@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20180618142036.GA13097@localhost.localdomain> Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Juri Lelli Cc: Tejun Heo , Li Zefan , Johannes Weiner , Peter Zijlstra , 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 , Patrick Bellasi On 06/18/2018 10:20 PM, Juri Lelli wrote: > Hi, > > On 18/06/18 12:13, Waiman Long wrote: >> v10: >> - Remove the cpuset.sched.load_balance patch for now as it may not >> be that useful. >> - Break the large patch 2 into smaller patches to make them a bit >> easier to review. >> - Test and fix issues related to changing "cpuset.cpus" and cpu >> online/offline in a domain root. >> - Rename isolated_cpus to reserved_cpus as this cpumask holds CPUs >> reserved for child sched domains. >> - Rework the scheduling domain debug printing code in the last patch. >> - Document update to the newly moved >> Documentation/admin-guide/cgroup-v2.rst. > There seem to be two (similar but different) 6/9 in the set. Something > went wrong? The isolated_cpus patch is old, I forgot to remove it before sending out the patch. > Also I can't seem to be able to create a subgroup with an isolated > domain root. I think that, when doing the following > > # mount -t cgroup2 none /sys/fs/cgroup > # echo "+cpuset" >/sys/fs/cgroup/cgroup.subtree_control > # mkdir /sys/fs/cgroup/g1 > # echo 0-1 >/sys/fs/cgroup/g1/cpuset.cpus > # echo 1 >/sys/fs/cgroup/g1/cpuset.sched.domain_root > > rebuild_sched_domains_locked exits early, since > top_cpuset.effective_cpus != cpu_active_mask. (effective_cpus being 2-3 > at this point since I'm testing this on a 0-3 system) > > In your v9 this [1] was adding a special condition to make rebuilding of > domains happen. Was the change intentional? Can you reply to the relevant patch to pinpoint what condition are you talking about? I do try to eliminate domain rebuild as much as possible, but I am just not sure which condition you have question about. Cheers, Longman