On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 11:35:56PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > That makes sense. So there would be a simple cpuset.isolation that can > be either 1 or 0 where 1 has all possible isolation stuff on. Then > if the need arises we can provide more tuning through a new specific > cgroup controller, right? Given that there isn't much that is hierarchical about them, I'm pretty skeptical about introducing a new controller or fancy hierarchical interface for it. If isolation is intertwined with cpuset partitioning and a simple knob for it fits well with the rest of configuration, yeah, but let's please try to avoid maximizing the interface. We want the interface to encode users' intentions (e.g., here, I want these cpus isolated) not the implementation details to make that happen. Of course, there are gradients but it becomes really ugly when you try to expose low level details on cgroups because of the implied flexibility (I can organize however I want hierarchically and the controls must nest and be delegatable properly). So, If you think isolation feature will need lots of low level knobs exposed, cgroup isn't the right place. It should be something simpler and lower level. This probably is a good time to spend some time thinking how it'd look like, say, five years down the line. If it's gonna be the "I want isolation" knob + maybe some obscure system wide knobs that most people don't need to think about, it's gonna be fine. Otherwise, we shouldn't put this in cgroup until we have better ideas on what the interface should look like. Thanks. -- tejun
