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:   Mon, 13 Jun 2022 08:00:56 -1000
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To:     Michal =?iso-8859-1?Q?Koutn=FD?= <mkoutny@suse.com>
Cc:     Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
        Zefan Li <lizefan.x@bytedance.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>, Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
        Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 7/8] cgroup/cpuset: Update description of
 cpuset.cpus.partition in cgroup-v2.rst
Message-ID: <Yqd7WMFj6AEyV3Cy@slm.duckdns.org>
References: <20220510153413.400020-1-longman@redhat.com>
 <20220510153413.400020-8-longman@redhat.com>
 <YqYnQ4U4t6j/3UaL@slm.duckdns.org>
 <404171dc-0da3-21f2-5003-9718f875e967@redhat.com>
 <YqarMyNo9oHxhZFh@slm.duckdns.org>
 <20220613142452.GB6910@blackbody.suse.cz>
 <YqdzuSQuAeiPXQvy@slm.duckdns.org>
 <20220613175548.GB21665@blackbody.suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20220613175548.GB21665@blackbody.suse.cz>
Precedence: bulk

Hello,

On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 07:55:49PM +0200, Michal Koutn? wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 07:28:25AM -1000, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote:
> > I see. Is this part even necessary? All the .cpus files of the siblings are
> > owned by the parent who's responsible for configuring both the mode that the
> > cgroup subtree is gonna be in and their cpumasks. 
> 
> Do you mean such an example:
> 
>     parent	cpuset.cpus=SET (root)	cpuset.cpus.partition=isolated 
>     `- child_1	cpuset.cpus=partition_of(SET) (root)	cpuset.cpus.partition=isolated
>     `- ...
>     `- child_n	cpuset.cpus=partition_of(SET) (root)	cpuset.cpus.partition=isolated
> ?
> 
> I don't think child_*/cpuset.cpus must be owned by root.

I meant the parent.

> Actually, the root would only configure the parent, i.e.
> parent/cpuset.cpus (whose changes would be disallowed to the
> unprivileged tasks) and the distribution among siblings would up to the
> whatever runs below.
> 
> > Given that all the other errors it can make are notified through
> > "invalid (REASON)" in the mode file, wouldn't it fit better to notify
> > cpus configuration error the same way too?
> 
> Do you suggest that a write into child_*/cpuset.cpus that'd not be
> exclusive wrt a sibling would result in an error string in
> parent/cpuset.cpus.partition?

Yeah, I don't know why this part is different from any other errors that the
parent can make.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun