Hi, On 29/05/18 09:41, Waiman Long wrote: > v9: > - Rename cpuset.sched.domain to cpuset.sched.domain_root to better > identify its purpose as the root of a new scheduling domain or > partition. > - Clarify in the document about the purpose of domain_root and > load_balance. Using domain_root is th only way to create new > partition. > - Fix a lockdep warning in update_isolated_cpumask() function. > - Add a new patch to eliminate call to generate_sched_domains() for > v2 when a change in cpu list does not touch a domain_root. I was playing with this and ended up with the situation below: g1/cgroup.controllers:cpuset g1/cgroup.events:populated 0 g1/cgroup.max.depth:max g1/cgroup.max.descendants:max g1/cgroup.stat:nr_descendants 1 g1/cgroup.stat:nr_dying_descendants 0 g1/cgroup.subtree_control:cpuset g1/cgroup.type:domain g1/cpuset.cpus:0-5 <--- g1/cpuset.cpus.effective:0-5 g1/cpuset.mems.effective:0-1 g1/cpuset.sched.domain_root:1 <--- g1/cpuset.sched.load_balance:1 g1/cpu.stat:usage_usec 0 g1/cpu.stat:user_usec 0 g1/cpu.stat:system_usec 0 g1/g11/cgroup.events:populated 0 g1/g11/cgroup.max.descendants:max g1/g11/cpu.stat:usage_usec 0 g1/g11/cpu.stat:user_usec 0 g1/g11/cpu.stat:system_usec 0 g1/g11/cgroup.type:domain g1/g11/cgroup.stat:nr_descendants 0 g1/g11/cgroup.stat:nr_dying_descendants 0 g1/g11/cpuset.cpus.effective:0-5 g1/g11/cgroup.controllers:cpuset g1/g11/cpuset.sched.load_balance:1 g1/g11/cpuset.mems.effective:0-1 g1/g11/cpuset.cpus:6-11 <--- g1/g11/cgroup.max.depth:max g1/g11/cpuset.sched.domain_root:0 Should this be allowed? I was expecting subgroup g11 should be restricted to a subset of g1's cpus. Best, - Juri -- 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
