Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Fri, 25 May 2018 10:40:50 +0100
From:   Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
To:     Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Cc:     Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
        Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, 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 <efault@gmx.de>, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
        Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 3/6] cpuset: Add cpuset.sched.load_balance flag to v2
Message-ID: <20180525094050.GB30654@e110439-lin>
References: <1526590545-3350-1-git-send-email-longman@redhat.com>
 <1526590545-3350-4-git-send-email-longman@redhat.com>
 <20180524143614.GC3948@localhost.localdomain>
 <4bd31510-4f73-e263-8dc1-5edb0fe63b59@redhat.com>
 <20180524151656.GD3948@localhost.localdomain>
 <5f409ed7-3850-f1ea-58cf-4326605d1570@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5f409ed7-3850-f1ea-58cf-4326605d1570@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 24-May 11:22, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 05/24/2018 11:16 AM, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > On 24/05/18 11:09, Waiman Long wrote:
> >> On 05/24/2018 10:36 AM, Juri Lelli wrote:
> >>> On 17/05/18 16:55, Waiman Long wrote:
> >>>
> >>> [...]
> >>>
> >>>> +	A parent cgroup cannot distribute all its CPUs to child
> >>>> +	scheduling domain cgroups unless its load balancing flag is
> >>>> +	turned off.
> >>>> +
> >>>> +  cpuset.sched.load_balance
> >>>> +	A read-write single value file which exists on non-root
> >>>> +	cpuset-enabled cgroups.  It is a binary value flag that accepts
> >>>> +	either "0" (off) or a non-zero value (on).  This flag is set
> >>>> +	by the parent and is not delegatable.
> >>>> +
> >>>> +	When it is on, tasks within this cpuset will be load-balanced
> >>>> +	by the kernel scheduler.  Tasks will be moved from CPUs with
> >>>> +	high load to other CPUs within the same cpuset with less load
> >>>> +	periodically.
> >>>> +
> >>>> +	When it is off, there will be no load balancing among CPUs on
> >>>> +	this cgroup.  Tasks will stay in the CPUs they are running on
> >>>> +	and will not be moved to other CPUs.
> >>>> +
> >>>> +	The initial value of this flag is "1".	This flag is then
> >>>> +	inherited by child cgroups with cpuset enabled.  Its state
> >>>> +	can only be changed on a scheduling domain cgroup with no
> >>>> +	cpuset-enabled children.
> >>> [...]
> >>>
> >>>> +	/*
> >>>> +	 * On default hierachy, a load balance flag change is only allowed
> >>>> +	 * in a scheduling domain with no child cpuset.
> >>>> +	 */
> >>>> +	if (cgroup_subsys_on_dfl(cpuset_cgrp_subsys) && balance_flag_changed &&
> >>>> +	   (!is_sched_domain(cs) || css_has_online_children(&cs->css))) {
> >>>> +		err = -EINVAL;
> >>>> +		goto out;
> >>>> +	}
> >>> The rule is actually
> >>>
> >>>  - no child cpuset
> >>>  - and it must be a scheduling domain

I always a bit confused by the usage of "scheduling domain", which
overlaps with the SD concept from the scheduler standpoint.

AFAIU a cpuset sched domain is not granted to be turned into an
actual scheduler SD, am I wrong?

If that's the case, why not better disambiguate these two concept by
calling the cpuset one a "cpus partition" or eventually "cpuset domain"?

-- 
#include <best/regards.h>

Patrick Bellasi