Hello, On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 01:53:45PM +0200, Michal Koutný wrote: > On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 08:00:56AM -1000, Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Yeah, I don't know why this part is different from any other errors that the > > parent can make. > > It's different because a write to parent's cpuset.cpus is independent of > whether cpuset.cpus of its children are exclusive or not. > In an extreme case the children may be non-exclusive > > parent cpuset.cpus=0-3 // valid partition > `- child_1 cpuset.cpus=0-1 // invalid partition > `- child_2 cpuset.cpus=1-2 // invalid partition > > but the parent can still be a valid partition (thanks to cpu no. 3 in > the example above). > > Do I miss anything? What I'm trying to say is that cpuset.cpus of child_1 and child_2 are owned by the parent, so a feature which blocks siblings from intersecting each other doesn't make whole lot of sense because all those files are under the control of the parent who would have the power to enable or disable the restrition anyway. The partition mode file is owned by the parent too, right? So, all these are to be configured by the same entity and the errors can be reported the same way, no? Thanks. -- tejun
