On 10/02/2018 04:06 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, Waiman. > > My apologies for the delay. > > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 01:50:18PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: >> My current code has explicitly assumed the following relationship for >> partition root. >> >> cpus_allowed = effective_cpus + reserved_cpus >> >> Also effective_cpus cannot be empty. Specifically, cpus_allowed has to >> be equal to effective_cpus before a cpuset can be made a partition root. >> >> Any changes that break the above conditions will turn off the partition >> flag forcefully. The only exception is cpu offlining where cpus_allowed >>> effective_cpus + reserved_cpus can happen. >> One reason for doing so is because reserved_cpus is hidden. So the main >> way to infer that is to do cpus_allowed - effective_cpus. >> >> It is probably doable to make cpus_allowed >= effective_cpus + >> reserved_cpus in general, but we may need to expose reserved_cpus as a >> read-only file, for instance. There may also be other complications that >> we will need to take care of if this is supported. My current preference >> is to not doing that unless there is compelling reason to do so. > So, if we're gonna make this hierarchical, I think it probably would > be better to go in all the way. It's kinda weird to mix the two > approaches - the normal cpuset operation following the usual > convention (it'd be really great to fix the removal part too) and > parition code doing something else. > > I think adding another interface file should be fine here. > > Thanks. > OK, I will revise the patch to make it work without the removal part. Thanks, Longman
