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 CB4421714A1 for ; Mon, 18 Nov 2024 09:39:35 +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=1731922777; cv=none; b=entcTmQI4BXf+SWGq9TW19ilwMcKJ7ydFovIw96vsSfOLqg7XFSmDFMRNgA5yj5aXhaZXRtvnK/7RITvpMXWPPcc+aYOclplpjC0AnmiqLKjK4GliFbLY0bTzLtF71r7Y0iLuTTBmbLU5RgA2pADaTkYObTIu0pzvphccbv95fo= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1731922777; c=relaxed/simple; bh=ASfy3ZmkJlDJivURpQuQX8Ww/zzWEUu+7CDd1iXeFdg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=fmpCL6bQCFFgu8opVi2DlYtR+Nn1dfAiryqEOM7KiDSuO8Z8d4mCmEqk24LR6Ig6gSGy81vUJYqiHS1FdTGw2Uw6loTrBtbAuwfGLarCk7hZWMYS280V46iOffuWyzK+cPjxbNCpceJZulMnAyf1bykGhO9K7lKOz67sBSTpJmE= 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=hYU9brEX; 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="hYU9brEX" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1731922775; 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: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=SCTWIW9+3Ez/dT5JWYg8kZzlPGcdYEYTLifRWAR2waM=; b=hYU9brEXFZs1ZdxOctdkXibu3yjTgG2dAh7FjonoooGNlIyJxdtlZgwdRKs9k7cFF3jDNJ +FBh1p2Pd68vEBHV4Gnnhli9QVmS5cJl0JDAwHy6pOwmFNfndmq1QGq/ktE03v0ZQvpp9g kcpOsfEBMnFFxkJWxohHoWw4717Og8A= Received: from mail-wm1-f70.google.com (mail-wm1-f70.google.com [209.85.128.70]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-379-ZTeTGCDzNY6yjwlaUiL5Ww-1; Mon, 18 Nov 2024 04:39:32 -0500 X-MC-Unique: ZTeTGCDzNY6yjwlaUiL5Ww-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: ZTeTGCDzNY6yjwlaUiL5Ww Received: by mail-wm1-f70.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-4315eaa3189so18217985e9.1 for ; Mon, 18 Nov 2024 01:39:32 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1731922771; x=1732527571; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=SCTWIW9+3Ez/dT5JWYg8kZzlPGcdYEYTLifRWAR2waM=; b=NXIA2zUnbE9Qermw/cys0sIopo2hWUbpitxugGB3NjIKfoT/p4pxCCmEcssJ4Xu/MW +6DmNXOdUZ0laUKS7MpL6JApKXm/hQeHzuxMS4wejS2iVrsJyoQxoWa6mKd5hCv94H70 XZr85X834HaPwcIPE3BTXbTg603uPaI0iiB6MshF0Wfwb2eEQxImBLDHv0kcZqg15AOA 2jQtbW28Zq8SHe1K0m4B156iCfAjTKIGBrk+5535ael35pk/7aaJT7Y4x0oLS8giEDDj vXtslTB6iF1LQANlkbReje7fmlqTYzvwa9ZkbKmWl9pP9kfTUpyC8xblvW24FZSXuU9+ O+jw== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCW/yYlIx363Z5/fcjp492qVa0wZdn+xM2GKpeyHwoxDlgHXq9HQIp4fYn7qbGhFS3rpDx4gXEjKYnlXKhY=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwjSmlbfa9Cak70CJEQ3jompeQghQfM8zx7D5sgkcTFle7is/A4 p8eArujJ4gwtDEHnB6kC9QXFZGoUnM8j/rCJdPxrwOXycYB0a/Rkysnn1N2ME1DrjbBT5qFhEoa yhi0XL/+rVtjjnIa673u5E5PSpE9UDXyfzT4EfggnR2vCtLTrGg8ow4f/Ve3+EOa9FzfXfkmY X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:34d0:b0:431:6083:cd30 with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-432df7229f6mr121513865e9.6.1731922769576; Mon, 18 Nov 2024 01:39:29 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGc6yVpDr/TaAuyJ9tO0NDlNPWZ/GE7BRdiwq0stPKiYiB6rMVLY2MnHX6hc4DRwRnWcOGDEA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:34d0:b0:431:6083:cd30 with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-432df7229f6mr121512985e9.6.1731922767768; Mon, 18 Nov 2024 01:39:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from jlelli-thinkpadt14gen4.remote.csb ([151.29.74.235]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 5b1f17b1804b1-432dab807d4sm148437785e9.21.2024.11.18.01.39.25 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 18 Nov 2024 01:39:26 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2024 10:39:24 +0100 From: Juri Lelli To: Waiman Long Cc: Tejun Heo , Johannes Weiner , Michal =?iso-8859-1?Q?Koutn=FD?= , cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Phil Auld Subject: Re: [PATCH] cgroup/cpuset: Disable cpuset_cpumask_can_shrink() test if not load balancing Message-ID: References: <20241114181915.142894-1-longman@redhat.com> <1515c439-32ef-4aee-9f69-c5af1fca79e3@redhat.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1515c439-32ef-4aee-9f69-c5af1fca79e3@redhat.com> 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? 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?