On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 02:53:31PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > On 05/24/2018 11:41 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 04:55:41PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > >> A new cpuset.sched.domain boolean flag is added to cpuset v2. This new > >> flag indicates that the CPUs in the current cpuset should be treated > >> as a separate scheduling domain. > > The traditional name for this is a partition. > > Do you want to call it cpuset.sched.partition? That name sounds strange > to me.
Let me explore the whole domain x load-balance space first. I'm thinking the two parameters are mostly redundant, but I might be overlooking something (trivial or otherwise). > >> + cpuset.sched.domain > >> + A read-write single value file which exists on non-root > >> + cpuset-enabled cgroups. It is a binary value flag that accepts > >> + either "0" (off) or a non-zero value (on). > > I would be conservative and only allow 0/1. > > I stated that because echoing other integer value like 2 into the flag > file won't return any error. I will modify it to say just 0 and 1. Ah, I would make the file error on >1. Because then you can always extend the meaning afterwards because you know it won't be written to with the new value. > >> + 3) There is no child cgroups with cpuset enabled. > >> + > >> + Setting this flag will take the CPUs away from the effective > >> + CPUs of the parent cgroup. Once it is set, this flag cannot be > >> + cleared if there are any child cgroups with cpuset enabled. > > This I'm not clear on. Why? > > > That is for pragmatic reason as it is easier to code this way. We could > remove this restriction but that will make the code more complex. Best to mention that I think. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
