From: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>
To: Waiman Long <llong@redhat.com>
Cc: "Tejun Heo" <tj@kernel.org>,
"Johannes Weiner" <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
"Michal Koutný" <mkoutny@suse.com>,
cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
"Phil Auld" <pauld@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cgroup/cpuset: Disable cpuset_cpumask_can_shrink() test if not load balancing
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2024 07:03:02 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZzwqFkzGACnbiTJW@jlelli-thinkpadt14gen4.remote.csb> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c3354d87-a856-421b-a03e-cda2f1346095@redhat.com>
On 18/11/24 22:28, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 11/18/24 8:58 AM, Waiman Long wrote:
> > > > 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.
>
> Sorry, I misread the test. The X5 entry above refers to "echo 5 >
> A1/A2/cpuset.cpus.exclusive" not to A3. This invalidates the A2 partition
> which further invalidates the child A3 partition. So the result is correct.
OK, makes sense to me. But so, the test doesn't actually fail? Sorry,
guess I'm confused. :)
prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-11-19 6:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-11-14 18:19 Waiman Long
2024-11-14 18:44 ` Tejun Heo
2024-11-15 10:54 ` Juri Lelli
2024-11-15 17:55 ` Waiman Long
2024-11-18 9:39 ` Juri Lelli
2024-11-18 13:58 ` Waiman Long
2024-11-19 3:28 ` Waiman Long
2024-11-19 6:03 ` Juri Lelli [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=ZzwqFkzGACnbiTJW@jlelli-thinkpadt14gen4.remote.csb \
--to=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=llong@redhat.com \
--cc=mkoutny@suse.com \
--cc=pauld@redhat.com \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®