On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 12:18:11PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 11:15:35AM -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > > The reason would be because it breaks "legacy" software. So that > > would only matter if Preeti needs to run such software. > > Sure, I get that argument but this is changing how the contorller > behaves in a major way. It is. My main counter to that would be that it is how cpusets should always have worked :) > There are specifics which may make this > particular case more justifiable but overall the combination of > arguments is pretty weird. And becomes harder to reason about and review/maintain. I agree there. >From userspace, I suppose one approach (though note it is racy) to solving this would be to have udev rules which . On cpu unplug, record all cgroups which were using that cpu . on cpu plug, re-add the cpu to all recorded cgroups for that cpu (if any), as well as to any cgroups marked (in some /etc file) as using "all" or a percentage of all cpus. -serge -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cgroups" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
