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:   Wed, 6 Jun 2018 13:56:35 -0700
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>, Zefan Li <lizefan@huawei.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.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>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpuset: Enforce that a child's cpus must be a subset of
 the parent
Message-ID: <20180606205635.GP1351649@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com>
References: <1527687991-1431-1-git-send-email-longman@redhat.com>
 <5B0F4F09.9050100@huawei.com>
 <5B0FAE72.1090204@huawei.com>
 <20180531082613.GF12180@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <5B0FB58C.9030705@huawei.com>
 <4dc718bc-4bd5-4998-853b-9c6ba67b89a0@redhat.com>
 <20180531155807.GU1351649@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com>
 <20180531161645.GN12180@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20180531161942.GW1351649@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com>
 <20180531163826.GO12180@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180531163826.GO12180@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hello, Peter.

Sorry about late reply.

On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 06:38:26PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Yeah, for cpuset, it's messier, but it isn't different from hotunplug
> > scenario, right?  I think the best we can do there is putting ancestor
> > operation on an equal footing as hotplug ops.
> 
> Right, but hotplug is exceedingly rare, while I get the impression you
> think it is perfectly fine to recind on your resource grants.

Well, yeah, for a trivial example, imagine dynamic workload management
where you wanna restrict what a side-loaded batch workload can do on
and off peak hours.  All other controllers can do that.  It'd be a
really odd design trade-off if we make that really clumsy for cpuset
especially given that we wouldn't be gaining any actual
functionalities.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun