From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06395C433EF for ; Sun, 12 Jun 2022 17:41:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231772AbiFLRlX (ORCPT ); Sun, 12 Jun 2022 13:41:23 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:53064 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231233AbiFLRlQ (ORCPT ); Sun, 12 Jun 2022 13:41:16 -0400 Received: from mail-pj1-x1030.google.com (mail-pj1-x1030.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1030]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DC46C5DA6C; Sun, 12 Jun 2022 10:41:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pj1-x1030.google.com with SMTP id a10so3698656pju.3; Sun, 12 Jun 2022 10:41:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=X6BJIvmW0nAM/rdDTrxImV1gJDMQBIx+HHhMyoZbXj0=; b=VePaCp4WTk52eQPlsdGdj1sEDkrzFDEkktTLgnzTAUURmN5dzumLqNzKwcRyno9pe5 R6uBdesg/HyOjALj1N4q5Swbx8MCK6m4oNXcrgj5Roy9AJ0JLzYbxXz2FImMdHTI6LMj YEaSj4RW/x41CQcePmC7BDegynpKSQdHW4hIiSgJlRQ1A6uhMTh/989NOlO24IW9Q4T3 uGDDPJdrVezaC8CcdStqLRbb9sjYIJtvpFpLdqCBj3XGkfloa212yArOs52hvS/4ULw2 wCjeFFj5FlGFBu4IlEOBnXS2gTjd4BrYn3CVNY8i9vTl3yIhcVBSyqJ6Whas/i608wIv WnAQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id :references:mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=X6BJIvmW0nAM/rdDTrxImV1gJDMQBIx+HHhMyoZbXj0=; b=oZgLIRWUTE7vL7ceCAUJurNuPuPlKENDzgpVfazdGsKJvTOG3vW2Jf9M20V5wa7YL+ UlcnCQdooIReSyEMW7Mn6FCO2sETj5G/oTkhG3AODX9zYzU+F//434cAcXA5177XlbNK ASt5Al0oZdRqQXqJj0e0aCwEuL3/crPLYZt+ZC7g8tbJ7/h8gVrU6DQFELKdAQnE6IbV A/yqYSmcOQHg1DrBomF2kOo0B46ON63DVusRzZaz/Ih+6noCze+F9J+9dAxMVVXaiab7 ooNFxABI0PcSNB+qcrLfykLmf9isjdWIiT8EEhO/HG3AlfWK3iRu1vvxk4ogQyMq7RYP re7Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532rC2L23oFkyjrzsoO5p2M/lOR9hwE6Cs+fxlRxIjf5GBJPFgM9 sQGP39TPhAbCd7Y/dg/+iyY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzBosxXhKrvrzX2QKVBSw1ncXUS2xzRvYGYYn1HUUFZZjRpHFAXUpJBCyp7VuGguxOQyA9x9A== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:ea08:b0:163:ec68:ae08 with SMTP id s8-20020a170902ea0800b00163ec68ae08mr24218342plg.52.1655055675292; Sun, 12 Jun 2022 10:41:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (2603-800c-1a02-1bae-a7fa-157f-969a-4cde.res6.spectrum.com. [2603:800c:1a02:1bae:a7fa:157f:969a:4cde]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id iz4-20020a170902ef8400b00162037fbb68sm3312522plb.215.2022.06.12.10.41.14 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sun, 12 Jun 2022 10:41:14 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Tejun Heo Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2022 07:41:13 -1000 From: Tejun Heo To: Waiman Long Cc: Zefan Li , Johannes Weiner , Jonathan Corbet , Shuah Khan , cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Roman Gushchin , Phil Auld , Peter Zijlstra , Juri Lelli , Frederic Weisbecker , Marcelo Tosatti , Michal =?iso-8859-1?Q?Koutn=FD?= Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 3/8] cgroup/cpuset: Allow no-task partition to have empty cpuset.cpus.effective Message-ID: References: <20220510153413.400020-1-longman@redhat.com> <20220510153413.400020-4-longman@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Jun 12, 2022 at 07:40:25AM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > Sorry about the long delay. > > On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 11:34:08AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > > Once a partition with empty "cpuset.cpus.effective" is formed, no > > new task can be moved into it until "cpuset.cpus.effective" becomes > > non-empty. > > This is always true due to no-tasks-in-intermediate-cgroups requirement, > right? or rather, I should have asked, why does this need an explicit check? Thanks. -- tejun