On 8/16/21 1:08 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
On Sat, Aug 14, 2021 at 04:57:42PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
+ A parent partition may distribute all its CPUs to its child
+ partitions as long as it is not the root cgroup and there is no
+ task directly associated with that parent partition. Otherwise,
"there is not task directly associated with the parent partition" isn't
necessary, right? That's already enforced by the cgroup hierarchy itself.
Sorry for the late reply as I was on vacation last week.
Yes, that is true. I should have de-emphasized that the fact that parent
partition must have no task.
+ there must be at least one cpu left in the parent partition.
+ A new task cannot be moved to a partition root with no effective
+ cpu.
+
+ Once becoming a partition root, changes to "cpuset.cpus"
+ is generally allowed as long as the first condition above
+ (cpu exclusivity rule) is true.
All the above ultimately says is that "a new task cannot be moved to a
partition root with no effective cpu", but I don't understand why this would
be a separate rule. Shouldn't the partition just stop being a partition when
it doesn't have any exclusive cpu? What's the benefit of having multiple its
own failure mode?
A partition with 0 cpu can be considered as a special partition type for
spawning child partitions. This can be temporary as the cpus will be
given back when a child partition is destroyed.
+ Sometimes, changes to "cpuset.cpus" or cpu hotplug may cause
+ the state of the partition root to become invalid when the
+ other constraints of partition root are violated. Therefore,
+ it is recommended that users should always set "cpuset.cpus"
+ to the proper value first before enabling partition. In case
+ "cpuset.cpus" has to be modified after partition is enabled,
+ users should check the state of "cpuset.cpus.partition" after
+ making change to it to make sure that the partition is still
+ valid.
So, idk why the this doesn't cover the one above it. Also, this really
should be worded a lot stronger. It's not just recommended - confirming and
monitoring the transitions is an integral and essential part of using
cpuset.
Sure, I will reword it to remove any mention of recommendation
...
+ An invalid partition is not a real partition even though the
+ restriction of the cpu exclusivity rule will still apply.
Is there a reason we can't bring this in line with other failure behaviors?
The internal flags are kept so that we can easily recover and become a
valid partition again when the cpus become available. Otherwise, we can
guarantee that the partition status can be restored even when the cpus
become available.
+ In the special case of a parent partition competing with a child
+ partition for the only CPU left, the parent partition wins and
+ the child partition becomes invalid.
Given that parent partitions are *always* empty, this rule doesn't seem to
make sense.
You are right. I will update the wording.
So, I think this definitely is a step in the right direction but still seems
to be neither here or there. Before, we pretended that we could police the
input when we couldn't. Now, we're changing the interface so that it
includes configuration failures as an integral part; however, we're still
policing some particular inputs while letting other inputs pass through and
trigger failures and why one is handled one way while the other differently
seems rather arbitrary.
The cpu_exclusive and load_balance flags are attributes associated
directly with the partition type. They are not affected by cpu
availability or changing of cpu list. That is why they are kept even
when the partition become invalid. If we have to remove them, it will be
equivalent to changing partition back to member and we may not need an
invalid partition type at all. Also, we will not be able to revert back
to partition again when the cpus becomes available.
Cheers,
Longman
