Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Sender: Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 26 May 2022 13:02:42 -1000
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To:     Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
        Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>,
        Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.com>,
        Zefan Li <lizefan.x@bytedance.com>,
        Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@kernel.org>,
        Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenz@kernel.org>,
        rcu@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/4] cpuset: Support RCU-NOCB toggle on v2 root
 partitions
Message-ID: <YpAHEt0j30vBw9au@slm.duckdns.org>
References: <20220525221055.1152307-1-frederic@kernel.org>
 <20220525221055.1152307-5-frederic@kernel.org>
 <Yo/FGcG+uiBh88sT@slm.duckdns.org>
 <20220526225141.GA1214445@lothringen>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220526225141.GA1214445@lothringen>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 12:51:41AM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > Does it even make sense to make this hierarchical? What's wrong with a
> > cpumask under sys/ or proc/?
> 
> I'm usually told that cpusets is the current place where CPU attributes are
> supposed to go. I personally don't mind much /sys either even though cpusets
> looks like a more flexible way to partition CPUs with properties and tasks
> placement altogether...

Yeah, I mean, if it's hierarchical, it's the right place but I have a hard
time seeing anything hierarchical with this one. Somebody just has to know
which cpus are up for rcu processing and which aren't. Waiman, what do you
think?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun