On 18/11/24 22:28, Waiman Long wrote: > On 11/18/24 8:58 AM, Waiman Long wrote: > > > > The failing test isn't an isolated partition. The actual test > > > > failure is > > > > > > > > Test TEST_MATRIX[62] failed result check! > > > > C0-4:X2-4:S+ C1-4:X2-4:S+:P2 C2-4:X4:P1 . . X5 . . 0 > > > > A1:0-4,A2:1-4,A3:2-4 > > > > A1:P0,A2:P-2,A3:P-1 > > > > > > > > In this particular case, cgroup A3 has the following setting > > > > before the X5 > > > > operation. > > > > > > > > A1/A2/A3/cpuset.cpus: 2-4 > > > > A1/A2/A3/cpuset.cpus.exclusive: 4 > > > > A1/A2/A3/cpuset.cpus.effective: 4 > > > > A1/A2/A3/cpuset.cpus.exclusive.effective: 4 > > > > A1/A2/A3/cpuset.cpus.partition: root > > > Right, and is this problematic already? > > We allow nested partition setup. So there can be a child partition > > underneath a parent partition. So this is OK. > > > > > > Then the test, I believe, does > > > > > > # echo 5 >cgroup/A1/A2/cpuset.cpus.exclusive > > > > > > and that goes through and makes the setup invalid - root domain reconf > > > and the following > > > > > > # cat cgroup/A1/cpuset.cpus.partition > > > member > > > # cat cgroup/A1/A2/cpuset.cpus.partition > > > isolated invalid (Parent is not a partition root) > > > # cat cgroup/A1/A2/A3/cpuset.cpus.partition > > > root invalid (Parent is an invalid partition root) > > > > > > Is this what shouldn't happen? > > > > > A3 should become invalid because none of the CPUs in > > cpuset.cpus.exclusive can be granted. However A2 should remain a valid > > partition. I will look further into that. Thank for spotting this > > inconsistency. > > Sorry, I misread the test. The X5 entry above refers to "echo 5 > > A1/A2/cpuset.cpus.exclusive" not to A3. This invalidates the A2 partition > which further invalidates the child A3 partition. So the result is correct. OK, makes sense to me. But so, the test doesn't actually fail? Sorry, guess I'm confused. :)
