Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751286AbdHaNu3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Aug 2017 09:50:29 -0400 Received: from mail-qk0-f196.google.com ([209.85.220.196]:35517 "EHLO mail-qk0-f196.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751086AbdHaNu1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Aug 2017 09:50:27 -0400 X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADKCNb7m8Auw0I8LpRWmvrMA51sXar+dsWM54bvX5ZM7k2DA7OWvGybssWhef63J4XoxiEcgpcL50A== Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 06:50:22 -0700 From: Tejun Heo To: Christian Brauner Cc: christian.brauner@ubuntu.com, Li Zefan , cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, w.bumiller@proxmox.com, stgraber@ubuntu.com, serge@hallyn.com Subject: Re: [lxc-devel] [RFC PATCH] cgroup, cpuset: add cpuset.remap_cpus Message-ID: <20170831135022.GA1599492@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com> References: <1482419271-15410-1-git-send-email-w.bumiller@proxmox.com> <20170830132755.tnqmuttodexc3oh6@mailbox.org> <20170831004131.GZ491396@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com> <20170831094145.mrz6daucapq5kvn7@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170831094145.mrz6daucapq5kvn7@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1332 Lines: 27 On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 11:41:47AM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote: > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 05:41:31PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote: > > Hello, > > > > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 03:27:55PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote: > > > The following patch was sent a while back by Wolfgang Bumiller to remap cpusets > > > for a whole subtree in a cgroup v1 cpuset hierarchy. The fact that currently > > > this is not possible in a non-racy why is a pretty big limitation. This is > > > especially true for nested containers. Where the nested containers often create > > > additional subcgroups in the cpuset controller at will. The fact that you can't > > > *easily* and in a non-racy way tighten the restriction on them after having > > > created the parent container's cpuset cgroup seems really troubling. > > > > There was a recent patch to enable v2 behavior on v1, which feels like > > the better approach at this point. I'm not sure about adding a whole > > new interface for this. > > Cool. If it can be done easier and less invasive I'm all for it. Did the patch > already make it into your branch and - only if you happen to have the reference > flying around - could you point me to it. https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tj/cgroup.git/commit/?h=for-4.14&id=b8d1b8ee93df8ffbabbeadd65d39853cfad6d698 Thanks. -- tejun