On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 05:59:11PM +0800, Li Zefan wrote:
> We're going to have separate user-configured masks and effective ones.
>
> At last configured masks can only be changed by writing cpuset.cpus
I suppose you mean "eventually" by "at last"?
> and cpuset.mems, and they won't be restricted by parent cpuset. While
> effective masks reflect cpu/memory hotplug and hierachical restriction.
>
> This patch adds and initializes the effective masks. The effective
> masks of the top cpuset is the same with configured masks, and a child
> cpuset inherites its parent's effective masks.
>
> This won't introduce behavior change.
>
> Signed-off-by: Li Zefan <lizefan@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> kernel/cpuset.c | 57 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
> 1 file changed, 46 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/cpuset.c b/kernel/cpuset.c
> index 70ab3fd..404fea5 100644
> --- a/kernel/cpuset.c
> +++ b/kernel/cpuset.c
> @@ -81,8 +81,14 @@ struct cpuset {
> struct cgroup_subsys_state css;
>
> unsigned long flags; /* "unsigned long" so bitops work */
> - cpumask_var_t cpus_allowed; /* CPUs allowed to tasks in cpuset */
> - nodemask_t mems_allowed; /* Memory Nodes allowed to tasks */
> +
> + /* user-configured CPUs and Memory Nodes allow to tasks */
> + cpumask_var_t cpus_allowed;
> + nodemask_t mems_allowed;
> +
> + /* effective CPUs and Memory Nodes allow to tasks */
> + cpumask_var_t real_cpus_allowed;
> + nodemask_t real_mems_allowed;
Can we stick to the term "effective"? If it's too long, we can drop
the "allowed" postfix, which is pretty superflous. effective_cpus and
effective_mems should work, right? For local vars, ecpus and emems
should do.
Thanks.
--
tejun
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
