Hello, On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 01:31:21PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 09:52:01AM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote: > > 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? The currently proposed implementation is somewhere in the middle. It kinda gets there by restricting a partition to be a child of another partition, which may be okay but it does make the whole delegation mechanism less useful. > > 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? Well, sorry that you hate it. It's a fundamental architectural constraint. If it can't satisfy that, it should't be in cgroup. Thanks. -- tejun -- 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
