On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 10:30:18AM +0200, Juri Lelli wrote: > Hi, > > On 26/05/22 14:37, Tejun Heo wrote: > > On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 08:28:43PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > > > I am thinking along the line that it will not be hierarchical. However, > > > cpuset can be useful if we want to have multiple isolated partitions > > > underneath the top cpuset with different isolation attributes, but no more > > > sub-isolated partition with sub-attributes underneath them. IOW, we can only > > > set them at the first level under top_cpuset. Will that be useful? > > > > At that point, I'd just prefer to have it under /proc or /sys. > > FWIW, I was under the impression that this would nicely fit along the > side of other feaures towards implenting dynamic isolation of CPUs (say > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220510153413.400020-1-longman@xxxxxxxxxx/ > for example). Wouldn't be awkward to have to poke different places to > achieve isolation at runtime? This, that's what I was thinking. My main objection to the whole thing is that it's an RCU_NOCB specific interface. *That* I think is daft. I was thinking a partition would be able to designate a house-keeping sub-partition/mask, but who cares about all the various different housekeeping parties.
