On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 04:45:49AM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote: > > > Hmm... so a given ancestor must be able to both > > > > > > 1. control which cpus are moved into a partition in all of its > > > subtree. > > > > By virtue of the partition file being owned by the parent, this is > > already achived, no? > > The currently proposed implementation is somewhere in the middle. It > kinda gets there by restricting a partition to be a child of another > partition, which may be okay but it does make the whole delegation > mechanism less useful. So the implementation does not set ownership of the 'partition' file to that of the parent directory? Because _that_ is what I understood from Waiman (many versions ago). And that _does_ allow delegation to work nicely. > > > 2. take away any given cpu from ist subtree. > > > > I really hate this obsession of yours and doubly so for partitions. But > > why would this currently not be allowed? > > Well, sorry that you hate it. It's a fundamental architectural > constraint. If it can't satisfy that, it should't be in cgroup. So is hierarchical behaviour; but you seem willing to forgo that. Still, the question was, how is this (dispicable or not) behaviour not allowed by the current implementation? -- 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
