From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7FB41199253 for ; Mon, 18 Nov 2024 13:58:24 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1731938306; cv=none; b=VVv0C/a+qI5/V2ecf7pdtzAVg5uySyZ8Lzsoej56CHpj4iio8Yf/1w3OLifFbDhcHJu5AS55F2XFz2R77n7bkkdlMp+QhmA4WXvZWcTlQ8gvAEZM9Ov2XCxRpRKVeMy+MAxlugRuSnX6ZcbG1cJJLxHNwdVt3QyQyyzW+l3ilII= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1731938306; c=relaxed/simple; bh=UiU/qtJW4f9XJc/dQnT7DENCuscjm2Y3iOhArlBgCzc=; h=From:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=kThl2hgkYydb5/QhaXZc9jkWGUiDgeOLKzgOIJlMAg7v1fGThfz3S7VRJqa1npGOUCk6Ia7/82rCjkUUfBZCfZnnh8wAuzxiRMqlq5u7aKA/SJ5ePvyDqis/b1xaV/tPdtWv1oYmf735Sbg8fh17ajPiM/FnizJLejSNm3xqK0g= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b=OCOzXL+f; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="OCOzXL+f" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1731938303; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=9MV9t7PeyS5fNDfqXNOqFnhhI7vbfFrtvKXlM5jfsTc=; b=OCOzXL+fImhH17RW19XIn6LauU9uZniRngeZ+XtYHQMwKt9nwSZ+p18U7AMA2Gb2m2BFA/ mZjtlGIGy1HD/cxeQTjZPa390sCo2YdJsLsncT//zGUqUPuWs/cxD87BEVeRsTGA63e6jU B7/TqTxTZJJXHh2kMIm3awiZFlfIMeY= Received: from mail-qk1-f199.google.com (mail-qk1-f199.google.com [209.85.222.199]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-681-e2Xay_7ONHKSOyG5PTOtJQ-1; Mon, 18 Nov 2024 08:58:22 -0500 X-MC-Unique: e2Xay_7ONHKSOyG5PTOtJQ-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: e2Xay_7ONHKSOyG5PTOtJQ Received: by mail-qk1-f199.google.com with SMTP id af79cd13be357-7b31ccf23ebso343519385a.1 for ; Mon, 18 Nov 2024 05:58:22 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1731938301; x=1732543101; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:content-language:references :cc:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id:from :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=9MV9t7PeyS5fNDfqXNOqFnhhI7vbfFrtvKXlM5jfsTc=; b=Fl+COWjUDbl9ivHybA/LZHp5OFKwWVdx+xlO98nq2xYnRKtCv6et0YjmXOk8AK+bE2 tL4P3sI8VZvzmG3eZRVsFch96zVfis/mdBS/3PXetPt4CCLWIHROV0+WGOG2AA3MHyH9 uCYExpbV5NDLtSofasY3LIRMGXptPrJNd4mKw4nxCNiWXJohhwCuihaFyUn1qLYMdjZn Ct1ZLkd/imnl0nW/26c5CIn32o1iDlgN7u5uSBLEiB1NbqF57hj0vEeEv1U8u6PoaPXv wgYPgLGSpoO0Fr/U/cUrynYcZR9Ao5NnowRyWA2tHMojPQe749TbQBcZL8B6QXsrrhtS eqBw== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCWGv4t6icJuvkik+i5XKFWzF3+hfoF5+A4nAyMBsdv/VU2TVQ/8TzWTp429an19AKClYNMVaaFskAJ4/xs=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxTlTyKcBpIyMe4kUqDa3+3TbscpRVEeXycocJZNOrZfc0P9F/k iP+ZPETmvu+k4Zt+/uTX5zqKryCuOsvuL/NYBY1184NI2a2duwqQ9S3GrBWjQoRhA1d5d9dkDWG KWVlMmoIiQz5MIG75C07FLMw1oYnedjYeKF+2WDdySG/rFuJ2CYWdZ29LgTcgv93rGyUzjQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:440a:b0:7ac:e30e:f6f with SMTP id af79cd13be357-7b36235bbb9mr1865985585a.43.1731938301358; Mon, 18 Nov 2024 05:58:21 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHg8zld4k6YPeW4BIJQGymHWq+9Oz05egcq1pXqCLPnt9QIgQqJxwWe9aQ3E+6DdEczTLGLTg== X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:440a:b0:7ac:e30e:f6f with SMTP id af79cd13be357-7b36235bbb9mr1865983785a.43.1731938301103; Mon, 18 Nov 2024 05:58:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPV6:2601:188:ca00:a00:f844:fad5:7984:7bd7? ([2601:188:ca00:a00:f844:fad5:7984:7bd7]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id af79cd13be357-7b35c984557sm483231885a.10.2024.11.18.05.58.19 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 18 Nov 2024 05:58:20 -0800 (PST) From: Waiman Long X-Google-Original-From: Waiman Long Message-ID: <5a878687-9d08-472e-a387-02b2a150d2df@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2024 08:58:19 -0500 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH] cgroup/cpuset: Disable cpuset_cpumask_can_shrink() test if not load balancing To: Juri Lelli , Waiman Long Cc: Tejun Heo , Johannes Weiner , =?UTF-8?Q?Michal_Koutn=C3=BD?= , cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Phil Auld References: <20241114181915.142894-1-longman@redhat.com> <1515c439-32ef-4aee-9f69-c5af1fca79e3@redhat.com> Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 11/18/24 4:39 AM, Juri Lelli wrote: > On 15/11/24 12:55, Waiman Long wrote: >> On 11/15/24 5:54 AM, Juri Lelli wrote: >>> Hi Waiman, >>> >>> On 14/11/24 13:19, Waiman Long wrote: >>>> With some recent proposed changes [1] in the deadline server code, >>>> it has caused a test failure in test_cpuset_prs.sh when a change >>>> is being made to an isolated partition. This is due to failing >>>> the cpuset_cpumask_can_shrink() check for SCHED_DEADLINE tasks at >>>> validate_change(). >>> What sort of change is being made to that isolated partition? Which test >>> is failing from the test_cpuset_prs.sh collection? Asking because I now >>> see "All tests PASSED" running that locally (with all my 3 patches on >>> top of cgroup/for-6.13 w/o this last patch from you). >> The failing test isn't an isolated partition. The actual test failure is >> >> Test TEST_MATRIX[62] failed result check! >> C0-4:X2-4:S+ C1-4:X2-4:S+:P2 C2-4:X4:P1 . . X5 . . 0 A1:0-4,A2:1-4,A3:2-4 >> A1:P0,A2:P-2,A3:P-1 >> >> In this particular case, cgroup A3 has the following setting before the X5 >> operation. >> >> A1/A2/A3/cpuset.cpus: 2-4 >> A1/A2/A3/cpuset.cpus.exclusive: 4 >> A1/A2/A3/cpuset.cpus.effective: 4 >> A1/A2/A3/cpuset.cpus.exclusive.effective: 4 >> A1/A2/A3/cpuset.cpus.partition: root > Right, and is this problematic already? We allow nested partition setup. So there can be a child partition underneath a parent partition. So this is OK. > > Then the test, I believe, does > > # echo 5 >cgroup/A1/A2/cpuset.cpus.exclusive > > and that goes through and makes the setup invalid - root domain reconf > and the following > > # cat cgroup/A1/cpuset.cpus.partition > member > # cat cgroup/A1/A2/cpuset.cpus.partition > isolated invalid (Parent is not a partition root) > # cat cgroup/A1/A2/A3/cpuset.cpus.partition > root invalid (Parent is an invalid partition root) > > Is this what shouldn't happen? > A3 should become invalid because none of the CPUs in cpuset.cpus.exclusive can be granted. However A2 should remain a valid partition. I will look further into that. Thank for spotting this inconsistency. Cheers, Longman