On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 09:47:02AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > diff --git a/Documentation/cgroup-v2.txt b/Documentation/cgroup-v2.txt > index c970bd7..8d89dc2 100644 > --- a/Documentation/cgroup-v2.txt > +++ b/Documentation/cgroup-v2.txt > @@ -1484,6 +1484,31 @@ Cpuset Interface Files > a subset of "cpuset.cpus". Its value will be affected by CPU > hotplug events. > > + cpuset.cpus.isolated > + A read-write multiple values file which exists on root cgroup > + only. > + > + It lists the CPUs that have been withdrawn from the root cgroup > + for load balancing. These CPUs can still be allocated to child > + cpusets with load balancing enabled, if necessary. > + > + If a child cpuset contains only an exclusive set of CPUs that are > + a subset of the isolated CPUs and with load balancing enabled, > + these CPUs will be load balanced on a separate root domain from > + the one in the root cgroup. > + > + Just putting the CPUs into "cpuset.cpus.isolated" will be > + enough to disable load balancing on those CPUs as long as they > + do not appear in a child cpuset with load balancing enabled. > + Fine-grained control of cpu isolation can also be done by > + putting these isolated CPUs into child cpusets with load > + balancing disabled. > + > + The "cpuset.cpus.isolated" should be set up before child > + cpusets are created. Once child cpusets are present, changes > + to "cpuset.cpus.isolated" will not be allowed if the CPUs that > + change their states are in any of the child cpusets. > + So I see why you did this, but it is _really_ ugly and breaks the container invariant. Ideally we'd make the root group less special, not more special. -- 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
