On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 09:52:01AM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 11:52:46AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > > BTW, the way the partition is currently implemented right now is that a > > child cannot be a partition root unless its parent is a partition root > > itself. That is to avoid turning on partition to affect ancestors > > further up the hierarchy than just the parent. So in the case of a > > container, it cannot allocate sub-partitions underneath it unless it is > > a partition itself. Will that solve your concern? > > Hmm... so a given ancestor must be able to both > > 1. control which cpus are moved into a partition in all of its > subtree. By virtue of the partition file being owned by the parent, this is already achived, no? > 2. take away any given cpu from ist subtree. I really hate this obsession of yours and doubly so for partitions. But why would this currently not be allowed? -- 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
