Hello. On Mon, Dec 01, 2025 at 05:44:47PM +0800, Sun Shaojie <[email protected]> wrote: > As for "different operation orders yield different results", Below is an > example that is not a corner case. > > root cgroup > / \ > A1 B1 > > #1> echo "0" > A1/cpuset.cpus > #2> echo "0-1" > B1/cpuset.cpus.exclusive --> return error > > #1> echo "0-1" > B1/cpuset.cpus.exclusive > #2> echo "0" > A1/cpuset.cpus
Here it is a combination of remote cs local partitions. I'd like to treat the two approaches separately and better not consider their combination. The idea (and permissions check AFACS) behind remote partitions is to allow "stealing" CPU ownership so cpuset.cpus.exclusive has different behavior. > > root cgroup > > | > > A1 //MK: A4 A5 here? > > / \ > > A2 A3... //MK: A4 A5 or here? > > > > #1> echo "0-1" > A1/cpuset.cpus > > #2> echo "root" > A1/cpuset.cpus.partition > > #3> echo "0-1" > A2/cpuset.cpus > > #4> echo "root" > A2/cpuset.cpus.partition > > mkdir A4 > > mkdir A5 > > echo "0" > A4/cpuset.cpus > > echo $$ > A4/cgroup.procs > > echo "1" > A5/cpuset.cpus > > echo $$ > A5/cgroup.procs > > > > If A2...A5 all belong to the same user, and that user wants both A4 and A5 > to have effective CPUs, then the user should also understand that A2 needs > to be adjusted to "member" instead of "root". > > if A2...A5 belong to different users, must satisfying user A4’s requirement > come at the expense of user A2’s requirement? That is not fair. If A4 is a sibling at the level of A1, then A2 must be stripped of its CPUs to honor the hierarchy hence the apparent unfairness. If A4 is a sibling at the level of A2 and they have different owning users, their respective cpuset.cpus should only be writable by A1's user (the one who distributes the cpus) so that any arbitration between the siblings is avoided. 0.02€, Michal
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
