Hello, Peter. On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 05:44:54PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > 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. So, that part isn't the problem. The problem is that if we allow partitioning nested further away from ancestor, the descendant would be able to take away reources from the removed ancestor. Waiman avoids this problem by only allowing partitions to nest but then it's kinda weird cuz it's just a separate tree. > > > > 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. Well, we do have root or first-level only things. Things just need to be properly delegatable when they're hierarchical (and things should be hierarchical only when that actually means something). While not desirable, considering the history, accomodating this specific usage that way seems acceptable to me. > Still, the question was, how is this (dispicable or not) behaviour not > allowed by the current implementation? I'm not quite sure what you're trying to ask. Can you elaborate? Thanks. -- tejun -- 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
