On 03/27/2018 10:02 AM, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 04:28:49PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: >> Maybe we can have a different root level flag, say, >> sched_partition_domain that is equivalent to !sched_load_balnace. >> However, I am still not sure if we should enforce that no task should be >> in the root cgroup when the flag is set. >> >> Tejun and Peter, what are your thoughts on this? > I haven't looked into the other issues too much but we for sure cannot > empty the root cgroup. > > Thanks. > Now, I have a different idea. How about we add a special root-only knob, say, "cpuset.cpus.isolated" that contains the list of CPUs that are still owned by root, but not participated in load balancing. All the tasks in the root are load-balanced among the remaining CPUs. A child can then be created that hold some or all the CPUs in the isolated set. It will then have a separate root domain if load balancing is on, or an isolated cpuset if load balancing is off. Will that idea work? Cheers, Longman -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
