Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 20 Jul 2018 13:31:21 +0200 | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v11 7/9] cpuset: Expose cpus.effective and mems.effective on cgroup v2 root |
| |
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 09:52:01AM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 11:52:46AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > > BTW, the way the partition is currently implemented right now is that a > > child cannot be a partition root unless its parent is a partition root > > itself. That is to avoid turning on partition to affect ancestors > > further up the hierarchy than just the parent. So in the case of a > > container, it cannot allocate sub-partitions underneath it unless it is > > a partition itself. Will that solve your concern? > > 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?
> 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?
| |