Hello, Waiman. I applied the prep patches. They look good on their own. On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 10:34:59AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: ... > cpuset. Unlike "cpuset.cpus", invalid input to "cpuset.cpus.exclusive" > will be rejected with an error. This new control file has no effect on We cannot maintain this as an invariant tho, right? For example, what happens when a parent cgroup later wants to withdraw a CPU from its cpuset.cpus which should always be allowed regardless of what its descendants are doing? Even with cpus.exclusive itself, I think it'd be important to always allow ancestors to be able to withdraw from the commitment as with other resources. I suppose one can argue that giving exclusive access to CPUs is a special case which doesn't follow this rule but cpus.exclusive having to be nested inside cpus which is subject to that rule makes that combination too contorted. Would it be difficult to follow how isolation modes behave when the target configuration can't be achieved? Thanks. -- tejun
