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:   Fri, 1 Jul 2022 07:53:55 +0900
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: <Yr4pgxUTmg+UN35F@mtj.duckdns.org>
References: <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>
 <Yqd7WMFj6AEyV3Cy@slm.duckdns.org>
 <20220614115345.GA6771@blackbody.suse.cz>
 <YroApRMPV/6zO5I8@mtj.duckdns.org>
 <20220630143211.GA22105@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: <20220630143211.GA22105@blackbody.suse.cz>
Precedence: bulk

Hello,

On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 04:32:11PM +0200, Michal Koutn? wrote:
> file				owner
> parent/				user (mkdir)
> `- cpuset.cpus			root
> `- cpuset.cpus.partition	root	(P)
> `- child_1/			user
>   ` cpuset.cpus			user	(*)
> `- child_2/			user
>   ` cpuset.cpus			user	(*)
> 
> The writes to child cpuset.cpus may/may not invalidate parent's (P)
> partition validity (whether a cpu is left to it to host possible tasks).
> child_1 vs child_2 overlap affects only whether the children cgroups are
> a valid partition.
> 
> I think you mean: writes to children cpuset.cpus should be allowed,
> possible exclusivity violation should be reported in
> parent/cpuset.cpus.partition.

I see.

> What I thought was OK: prevent (fail) writes to children cpuset.cpus
> that'd violate the exclusivity (or would take the last cpu from parent
> if it's necessary to host a task).
> IMO, it's similar to failed writes to parent/cgroup.subtree_control in a
> delegated subtree if the parent still has some tasks (that'd violate
> internal node constraint).
> 
> What I think might still be OK: allow writes to children cpuset.cpus
> that violate exclusivity and report that in children's
> cpuset.cpus.partition. Writes that'd take last cpu from parent should
> still fail (similar to the failing subtree_control writes above).

Yeah, this one.

So, here, one important question is who owns cpuset.cpus.partition
file - is it a konb which is owned by the parent like other resource
control knobs including cpuset.cpus or is it a knob which is owned by
the cgroup itself for selecting its own operation like cgroup.procs or
cgroup.subtree_control.

In the former case, the parent being able to say that "my children
can't overlap" makes sense although I'm not a big fan of the current
interface (again, who owns that knob?). In the latter case, it doesn't
really make sense cuz it'd be declaring "I can't make my children
overlap" - well, then, don't.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun