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 5562D150981 for ; Tue, 19 Nov 2024 06:03:11 +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=1731996193; cv=none; b=tBj9sTDtQTSbKN911gvNPKJSPJUectziXiNkz16+DRGpJ/eLjQE3F495faUaqKdlHJV0N12+BKXc2b8imZNsMhbH8VyhFsvD2Ru7QJ4L8Ahw+BDEv7PFWsRNAMUXsDiMBK74qkwPffJ4as89U7tVudDlJ7fwLi84t8uphvOP9P8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1731996193; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Mlb24BR91olr/c0PnTtI9xuV2wUp7nrG4b18G/p3hGg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=j/KooZYOe+5/8U5skFoAYmQxOqu1o60PBDOvKR6aEun1dZsehrAZ/va68HL4ozV+C4qwFPhDoaYyOW6hM6/d1I/O7P3SKsVRp6eusiSmA0xJjJVkm4cq043xDqzc/h6E0EpSLXvrQiRfLD6vLfRP72s7+S2Vkx5LKQ2cSNS00kQ= 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=NjWAMEsv; 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="NjWAMEsv" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1731996190; 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=AVNYyqpnD/KRHanFC8wz+cSrFTnAk34SdUd5nLIOvCk=; b=NjWAMEsvO855dvBw+/neaKoY4x/9O87BevKM2tnQR/Xf/pAZ/RzuhjKLO5nFL94zrV/ySw gOioxdEJsESFPiLdc+Qyg8MqxiSY1rAMDaIzcvtp6rWkAK+9SyQBamlPlu/fF59ezz6qRI 2mALurgtj/kHRL9/8grZCTJguO4USSY= 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-647-fNsNxG7jNiuw1yxqSXzW5g-1; Tue, 19 Nov 2024 01:03:08 -0500 X-MC-Unique: fNsNxG7jNiuw1yxqSXzW5g-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: fNsNxG7jNiuw1yxqSXzW5g Received: by mail-wm1-f70.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-4316300bb15so3927035e9.2 for ; Mon, 18 Nov 2024 22:03:08 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1731996187; x=1732600987; 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=AVNYyqpnD/KRHanFC8wz+cSrFTnAk34SdUd5nLIOvCk=; b=hY3xhKkrRLvE6iwIA+U5qdH+pCGXUx0/xcrwcgG9p+nLG0JARy1xXjlQwkF0bYbdPF RnNByNexxbyxlgnBCRXrMdBoP0MtHJWjiMHfL63v8ntJdDbGBLvQSbCyBIT+JDZnMj9m 2Tkj+C9kduHrIcvXUdkQ0pfk+saU6jzT6vKvIAlTVN0fVyQwA7WxwAHKxAOT+LA9Z+7h gxV9A0HC3p83+QvUrPnhqSHGyDuk2aH5+GjEV9L7P36xbSJo5TNLBHT6ImIpT71lacHp rN+tkSa5tmVA9r4eNQAK3IsdjM4slybvAsl8xjPC/GB9WeHkVXDdTPG8kqc+SQToo5+3 ow0A== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCUboeerND0O6wKqF75gbpNjpiVDUF4fuTjqZ27c3YVtpwqU7IdypWoyxRzJxvYIJGeLGriQlycN1x/OGxs=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxiTTmyPqNtDR0NVEpIRXFAOgCkujA18ihHVuuIX8nnQHgYNlWo skpfTdo/+d/3+tIhDgm49vwXbbtUNv7pH9wJsa4+Y87bylusz+paSt9d+GIQz9IVPuUKdFuBuxV mb0byajmQzRlPWG7WeNBp3A8VXMMyUcaLHMS+LiuxNxn7eJYgLJPqxIaGDlAKbA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:b8f:b0:431:561b:b32a with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-432df74cd6fmr127476875e9.19.1731996187381; Mon, 18 Nov 2024 22:03:07 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFohqQmUxnR8N9/g+dNimT9dXzE/ioMgWVayD6md4T0F7iMNpwZ/ZqX5QIL5sixzMqeMnItFw== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:b8f:b0:431:561b:b32a with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-432df74cd6fmr127476655e9.19.1731996186994; Mon, 18 Nov 2024 22:03:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from jlelli-thinkpadt14gen4.remote.csb ([151.29.74.235]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 5b1f17b1804b1-432dab80869sm179708965e9.22.2024.11.18.22.03.03 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 18 Nov 2024 22:03:05 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2024 07:03:02 +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> <5a878687-9d08-472e-a387-02b2a150d2df@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: 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. :)