LKML Archive on
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Waiman Long <>
To: Tejun Heo <>, Waiman Long <>
Cc: "Zefan Li" <>,
	"Johannes Weiner" <>,
	"Jonathan Corbet" <>,
	"Shuah Khan" <>,,,,,
	"Andrew Morton" <>,
	"Roman Gushchin" <>, "Phil Auld" <>,
	"Peter Zijlstra" <>,
	"Juri Lelli" <>,
	"Frederic Weisbecker" <>,
	"Marcelo Tosatti" <>,
	"Michal Koutný" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 5/6] cgroup/cpuset: Update description of cpuset.cpus.partition in cgroup-v2.rst
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2021 15:21:59 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

On 8/24/21 3:04 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 01:35:33AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>> Sorry for the late reply as I was on vacation last week.
> No worries. Hope you enjoyed the vacation. :)
>>> All the above ultimately says is that "a new task cannot be moved to a
>>> partition root with no effective cpu", but I don't understand why this would
>>> be a separate rule. Shouldn't the partition just stop being a partition when
>>> it doesn't have any exclusive cpu? What's the benefit of having multiple its
>>> own failure mode?
>> A partition with 0 cpu can be considered as a special partition type for
>> spawning child partitions. This can be temporary as the cpus will be given
>> back when a child partition is destroyed.
> But it can also happen by cpus going offline while the partition is
> populated, right? Am I correct in thinking that a partition without cpu is
> valid if its subtree contains cpus and invalid otherwise? If that's the
> case, it looks like the rules can be made significantly simpler. The parent
> cgroups never have processes anyway, so a partition is valid if its subtree
> contains cpus, invalid otherwise.
Yes, that is true. Thanks for the simplification.
>>> So, I think this definitely is a step in the right direction but still seems
>>> to be neither here or there. Before, we pretended that we could police the
>>> input when we couldn't. Now, we're changing the interface so that it
>>> includes configuration failures as an integral part; however, we're still
>>> policing some particular inputs while letting other inputs pass through and
>>> trigger failures and why one is handled one way while the other differently
>>> seems rather arbitrary.
>> The cpu_exclusive and load_balance flags are attributes associated directly
>> with the partition type. They are not affected by cpu availability or
>> changing of cpu list. That is why they are kept even when the partition
>> become invalid. If we have to remove them, it will be equivalent to changing
>> partition back to member and we may not need an invalid partition type at
>> all. Also, we will not be able to revert back to partition again when the
>> cpus becomes available.
> Oh, yeah, I'm not saying to lose those states. What I'm trying to say is
> that the rules and failure modes seem a lot more complicated than they need
> to be. If the configuration becomes invalid for whatever reason, transition
> the partition into invalid state and report why. If the situation resolves
> for whatever reason, transition it back to valid state. Shouldn't that work?

I agree that the current description is probably more complicated than 
it should be. I will try to fix that.


  reply	other threads:[~2021-08-25 19:22 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-08-14 20:57 [PATCH-cgroup v6 0/6] cgroup/cpuset: Add new cpuset partition type & empty effecitve cpus Waiman Long
2021-08-14 20:57 ` [PATCH v6 1/6] cgroup/cpuset: Properly transition to invalid partition Waiman Long
2021-08-14 20:57 ` [PATCH v6 2/6] cgroup/cpuset: Show invalid partition reason string Waiman Long
2021-08-14 20:57 ` [PATCH v6 3/6] cgroup/cpuset: Add a new isolated cpus.partition type Waiman Long
2021-08-14 20:57 ` [PATCH v6 4/6] cgroup/cpuset: Allow non-top parent partition to distribute out all CPUs Waiman Long
2021-08-14 20:57 ` [PATCH v6 5/6] cgroup/cpuset: Update description of cpuset.cpus.partition in cgroup-v2.rst Waiman Long
2021-08-16 17:08   ` Tejun Heo
2021-08-24  5:35     ` Waiman Long
2021-08-24 19:04       ` Tejun Heo
2021-08-25 19:21         ` Waiman Long [this message]
2021-08-25 19:24           ` Tejun Heo
2021-08-14 20:57 ` [PATCH v6 6/6] kselftest/cgroup: Add cpuset v2 partition root state test Waiman Long

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH v6 5/6] cgroup/cpuset: Update description of cpuset.cpus.partition in cgroup-v2.rst' \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).