On 05/30/2018 09:05 AM, Juri Lelli wrote: > On 30/05/18 08:56, Waiman Long wrote: >> On 05/30/2018 06:13 AM, Juri Lelli wrote: >>> 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 >> That shouldn't be allowed.The code is probably missing some checks that >> should have been done. What was the sequence of commands leading to the >> above configuration? > This is a E5-2609 v3 (12 cores) Fedora Server box (with systemd, so > first command is needed to be able to use cpuset controller with v2, > IIUC): > > # umount /sys/fs/cgroup/cpuset > # cd /sys/fs/cgroup/unified/ > # echo "+cpuset" >cgroup.subtree_control > # mkdir g1 > # echo 0-5 >g1/cpuset.cpus > # echo 6-11 >init.scope/cpuset.cpus > # echo 6-11 >machine.slice/cpuset.cpus > # echo 6-11 >system.slice/cpuset.cpus > # echo 6-11 >user.slice/cpuset.cpus > # echo 1 >g1/cpuset.sched.domain_root > # mkdir g1/g11 > # echo "+cpuset" > g1/cgroup.subtree_control > # echo 6-11 >g1/g11/cpuset.cpus > # grep -R . g1/* > > That should be it. Am I doing something wrong? > > Thanks, > > - Juri Yes, it is a bug in the existing code. I have sent out a patch to fix that. -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
