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;
Message-ID: <82aeb5aa-7d69-78dd-bb26-60a51dc8a839@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 10 Jul 2023 23:24:37 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.7.1
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 8/9] cgroup/cpuset: Documentation update for partition
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc:     Zefan Li <lizefan.x@bytedance.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
        Mrunal Patel <mpatel@redhat.com>,
        Ryan Phillips <rphillips@redhat.com>,
        Brent Rowsell <browsell@redhat.com>,
        Peter Hunt <pehunt@redhat.com>, Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.com>
References: <20230627143508.1576882-1-longman@redhat.com>
 <20230627143508.1576882-9-longman@redhat.com>
 <ZKx4ZJowRhRtjZxB@slm.duckdns.org>
 <6d5aee58-f558-868c-76e0-0b58f8332110@redhat.com>
 <ZKyljsbJgLNpsBLI@slm.duckdns.org>
 <a429e60a-fc4f-60b0-3978-71596fed9542@redhat.com>
 <ZKyrP74UzVb4Ltwi@slm.duckdns.org>
From:   Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <ZKyrP74UzVb4Ltwi@slm.duckdns.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 7/10/23 21:07, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 08:53:18PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>> For local partition, it doesn't make sense to have a cpust.cpus.exclusive
>> that is not the same as cpuset.cpus as it artificially reduce the set of
>> CPUs that can be used in a partition. In the case of a remote partition, the
> Yeah, I was wondering about local partitions. "Automatic but can be
> overridden" behavior becomes confusing if it's difficult for the user to
> easily tell which part is automatic when. I wonder whether it'd be better to
> make the condition static - e.g. for a partition cgroup, cpus.exclusive
> always contains all bits in cpus no matter what value is written to it. Or,
> if we separate out cpus.exclusive and cpus.exclusive.effective, no matter
> what cpus.exclusive is set, a partition root's cpus.exclusive.effective
> always includes all bits in cpus.effective.

With no offline CPUs, cpus.effective should be the same as 
cpus.exclusive.effective for a valid partition root. Here 
cpus.exclusive.effective is a bit different from cpus.effective as it 
can contain offline cpus. It also mean that adding 
cpus.exclusive.effective can be redundant.

As said before, I try to avoid adding new cpuset control file unless 
absolutely necessary. I now have a slight different proposal. Once 
manually set, I can keep cpuset.cpus.exclusive invariant. I do need to 
do a bit more work when enabling a partition root to find out the 
effective set of exclusive CPUs to be used or make the partition invalid 
if no exclusive CPU is available. I still want to do a initial check 
when setting cpuset.cpus.exclusive to make sure that the value is at 
least valid at the beginning.

Do you think this is an acceptable compromise?

Thanks,
Longman