On 4/12/23 20:03, Tejun Heo wrote:
Hello,
On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 04:33:29PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
I think we can. You mean having a new "cpuset.cpus.isolated" cgroupfs file.
So there will be one in the root cgroup that defines all the isolated CPUs
one can have. It is then distributed down the hierarchy and can be claimed
only if a cgroup becomes an "isolated" partition. There will be a slight
Yeah, that seems a lot more congruent with the typical pattern.
change in the semantics of an "isolated" partition, but I doubt there will
be much users out there.
I haven't thought through it too hard but what prevents staying compatible
with the current behavior?
It is possible to stay compatible with existing behavior. It is just
that a break from existing behavior will make the solution more clean.
So the new behavior will be:
If the "cpuset.cpus.isolated" isn't set, the existing rules applies.
If it is set, the new rule will be used.
Does that look reasonable to you?
Cheers,
Longman
