Re: [PATCH v8 5/6] cgroup/cpuset: Update description of cpuset.cpus.partition in cgroup-v2.rst

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 11/30/21 12:11, Tejun Heo wrote:
Hello, Waiman.

On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 10:35:19AM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
     On read, the "cpuset.cpus.partition" file can show the following
     values.

       ======================    ==============================
       "member"            Non-root member of a partition
       "root"            Partition root
       "isolated"            Partition root without load balancing
       "root invalid (<reason>)"    Invalid partition root
       ======================    ==============================
What happens if an isolated domain becomes invalid and then valid again due
to cpu hotplug? Does it go "root invalid" and then back to "isolated"?
Yes, the current code allow recovering from an invalid state. In this particular case, the transition will be "isolated" --> "root invalid" --> "isolated".
...
     Before the "member" to partition root transition can happen,
     the following conditions must be met or the transition will
     not be allowed.

     1) The "cpuset.cpus" is non-empty and exclusive, i.e. they are
        not shared by any of its siblings.
     2) The parent cgroup is a valid partition root.
     3) The "cpuset.cpus" is a subset of parent's "cpuset.cpus".
     4) There is no child cgroups with cpuset enabled.  This avoids
        cpu migrations of multiple cgroups simultaneously which can
        be problematic.
So, I still have a hard time justifying the above restrictions. 1) can be
broken through hotplug anyway. 2) can be broken by the parent switching to
member. 3) would mean that we'd need to restrict parent's config changes
depending on what children are doing. 4) is more understandable but it's an
implementation detail that we can address in the future.

The initial transition to a partition root has a higher barrier. Once it becomes a partition root. Some restrictions are relaxed.

     Once becoming a partition root, the following two rules restrict
     what changes can be made to "cpuset.cpus".

     1) The value must be exclusive.
     2) If child cpusets exist, the value must be a superset of what
        are defined in the child cpusets.

     The second rule applies even for "member". Other changes to
     "cpuset.cpus" that do not violate the above rules are always
     allowed.
While it isn't necessarily tied to this series, it's a big no-no to restrict
what a parent can do depending on what its descendants are doing. A cgroup
higher up in the hierarchy should be able to change configuration however it
sees fit as deligation breaks down otherwise.

Maybe you can argue that cpuset is special and shouldn't be subject to such
convention but I can't see strong enough justifications especially given
that most of these restrictions can be broken by hotplug operations anyway
and thus need code to handle those situations.

These are all pre-existing restrictions before the introduction of partition. These are checks done in validate_change(). I am just saying out loud the existing behavior. If you think that needs to be changed, I am fine with that. However, it will be a separate patch as it is not a behavior that is introduced by this series.


     Changing a partition root (valid or invalid) to "member" is
     always allowed.  If there are child partition roots underneath
     it, however, they will be forced to be switched back to "member"
     too and lose their partitions. So care must be taken to double
     check for this condition before disabling a partition root.
Wouldn't it make more sense for them to retain their configuration and turn
invalid? Why is this special?

Once an invalid partition is changed to "member", there is no way for a child invalid partition root to recover and become valid again. There is why I force them to become "member" also. I am OK if you believe it is better to keep them in the invalid state forever until we explicitly changed them to "member" eventually.



     A valid parent partition may distribute out all its CPUs to
     its child partitions as long as it is not the root cgroup and
     there is no task associated with it.
A valid parent partition which isn't root never has tasks in them to begin
with.
I believe there is some corner cases where it is possible to put task in an intermediate partition. That is why I put down this statement.

Cheers,
Longman




[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]     [Monitors]

  Powered by Linux