On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 04:45:49AM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:

quoted

quoted

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?

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.

quoted

quoted

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.

Still, the question was, how is this (dispicable or not) behaviour not
allowed by the current implementation?