On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 11:14:27PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote: > A major concern I have is the overhead of creating a poor man version of v2 > cpus_allowed. This issue can be worked around even for cpuset v1 if it is > mounted with the cpuset_v2_mode option to behave more like v2 in its cpumask > handling. Alternatively we may be able to provide a config option to make > this the default for v1 without the special mount option, if necessary. It is equally broken for v2, it masks against effective_cpus. Not to mention it explicitly starts with cpu_online_mask.
