On Wed, 2018-03-14 at 12:57 -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:

Hello,

On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 04:47:28AM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:

quoted

Some form of cpu_exclusive (preferably exactly that, but something else
could replace it) is needed to define sets that must not overlap any
other set at creation time or any time thereafter.  A set with property
'exclusive' is the enabler for fundamentally exclusive (but dynamic!)
set properties such as 'isolated' (etc etc).

I'm not sure cpu_exclusive makes sense.  A controller knob can either
belong to the parent or the cgroup itself and cpu_exclusive doesn't
make sense in either case.

1. cpu_exclusive is owned by the parent as other usual resource
   control knobs.  IOW, it's not delegatable.

   This is weird because it's asking the kernel to protect against its
   own misconfiguration and there's nothing preventing cpu_exclusive
   itself being cleared by the same entitya.

2. cpu_exclusive is owned by the cgroup itself like memory.oom_group.
   IOW, it's delegatable.

   This allows a cgroup to affect what its siblings can or cannot do,
   which is broken.  Semantically, it doesn't make much sense either.

I don't think it's a good idea to add a kernel mechanism to prevent
misconfiguration from a single entity.

Under the hood v2 details are entirely up to you.  My input ends at
please don't leave dynamic partitioning standing at the dock when v2
sails.

	-Mike
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html