Hello, On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 04:24:52PM +0200, Michal Koutný wrote: > On Sun, Jun 12, 2022 at 05:12:51PM -1000, Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 12, 2022 at 11:02:38PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > > > That is the behavior enforced by setting the CPU_EXCLUSIVE bit in cgroup v1. > > > I haven't explicitly change it to make it different in cgroup v2. The major > > > reason is that I don't want change to one cpuset to affect a sibling > > > partition as it may make the code more complicate to validate if a partition > > > is valid. > > > > If at all possible, I'd really like to avoid situations where a parent can't > > withdraw resources due to something that a descendant does. > > My understanding of the discussed paragraph is that the changes are only > disallowed only among siblings on one level (due to exclusivity rule, > checked in validate_change()). A change in parent won't affect > (non)exclusivity of (valid) children so it's simply allowed. > > So the docs (and implementation by a quick look) is sensible. I see. Is this part even necessary? All the .cpus files of the siblings are owned by the parent who's responsible for configuring both the mode that the cgroup subtree is gonna be in and their cpumasks. Given that all the other errors it can make are notified through "invalid (REASON)" in the mode file, wouldn't it fit better to notify cpus configuration error the same way too? Thanks. -- tejun
