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:   Thu, 26 Mar 2020 16:23:40 -0400
From:   Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
To:     Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc:     Sonny Rao <sonnyrao@google.com>, Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Dmitry Shmidt <dimitrysh@google.com>,
        Amit Pundir <amit.pundir@linaro.org>, kernel-team@android.com,
        Jesse Barnes <jsbarnes@google.com>, vpillai@digitalocean.com,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <groeck@chromium.org>,
        Greg Kerr <kerrnel@google.com>, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] cpuset: Make cpusets get restored on hotplug
Message-ID: <20200326202340.GA146657@google.com>
References: <20200326191623.129285-1-joel@joelfernandes.org>
 <20200326192035.GO162390@mtj.duckdns.org>
 <20200326194448.GA133524@google.com>
 <972a5c1b-6721-ac20-cec5-617af67e617d@redhat.com>
 <CAPz6YkVUsDz456z8-X2G_EDd-uet1rRNnh2sDUpdcoWp_fkDDw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200326201649.GQ162390@mtj.duckdns.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200326201649.GQ162390@mtj.duckdns.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.2 (2019-09-21)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 04:18:59PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 01:05:04PM -0700, Sonny Rao wrote:
> > I am surprised if anyone actually wants this behavior, we (Chrome OS)
> 
> The behavior is silly but consistent in that it doesn't allow empty active
> cpusets and it has been like that for many many years now.
> 
> > found out about it accidentally, and then found that Android had been
> > carrying a patch to fix it.  And if it were a desirable behavior then
> > why isn't it an option in v2?
> 
> Nobody is saying it's a good behavior (hence the change in cgroup2) and there
> are situations where changing things like this is justifiable, but, here:
> 
> * The proposed change makes the interface inconsistent and does so
>   unconditionally on what is now a mostly legacy interface.
> 
> * There already is a newer version of the interface which includes the
>   desired behavior.
> 
> * I forgot but as Waiman pointed out, you can even opt-in to the new
>   behavior, which is more comprehensive without the inconsitencies,
>   while staying on cgroup1.

Thank you Tejun, Waiman and Sonny. I confirmed the cgroup_v2_mode option
fixes cgroup v1's broken behavior.

We will use this mount option on our systems to fix it.

thanks,

 - Joel