On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 08:58:23AM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, Waiman. > > On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 08:41:31AM +0800, Waiman Long wrote: > > > So, effective changing when enabling partition on a child feels wrong > > > to me. It's supposed to contain what's actually allowed to the cgroup > > > from its parent and that shouldn't change regardless of how those > > > resources are used. It's still given to the cgroup from its parent. > > > > Another way to work around this issue is to expose the reserved_cpus in > > the parent for holding CPUs that can taken by a chid partition. That > > will require adding one more cpuset file for those cgroups that are > > partition roots. > > Yeah, that should work. > > > I don't mind restricting that to the first level children for now. That > > does restrict where we can put the container root if we want a separate > > partition for a container. Let's hear if others have any objection about > > that. > > As currently implemented, partioning locks away the cpus which should > be a system level decision, not container level, so it makes sense to > me that it is only available to system root. I'm terribly confused, what?! Why would a container not be allowed to create partitions for its various RT workloads? -- 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
