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 5FC5D1422B8 for ; Tue, 19 Nov 2024 03:28:44 +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=1731986926; cv=none; b=jZt7kSX/z2He1t34v2slFLJTF+YKcRL9qaQNJx9s5T5AhfnE9E+O0kWjBk8G+f88oRtz01QzFi9gRyuEzdu1eZDlqm6WH4kR/ey2kJCKxiRrJHMje/YaBs+DxGM47Ls5JJpAiSAFD3Wu7fr94njUf95wEfo8qJhAueCSJX8ZS7k= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1731986926; c=relaxed/simple; bh=xRS4+hfrg3gCeRdM/kgrY9Q/qqbZgYGs1w5s9hrk8iY=; h=From:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=S+Cb1pXZq8E22mqmd8krOqj8BnIkS1Qaww+j+oswzS1NHQi+ZQ9uBrgRI69yLsZE8dFgsDo9HWow8Ppuq0zjI+5Cji2JoC6k1upWnSKZ6S8SNhArM1vAAjKgPjmFUM/dBzseXwhN6yNYa+RKS9J4pnh4JvEYRwi/OCA2eUIb1Wo= 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=MVveFqwG; 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="MVveFqwG" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1731986923; 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=r8PlemWAggT45hfxEfheUGm2fsh9572BEWCOzq6YZBo=; b=MVveFqwGkZoUkh6ME4JfOw5aQx00UHOJYM23hl5jdui4I/Ncn5mrRm1UcmUbYzZuThKebh 8pUbsY7+PCd5JIQkYqOpdFuoIEbCJRYi6ZHRvgLdgahuKO7kqrCBv2c16Ow5FUXPCjV4rq snJj4NhJguqJMIcdK46cuQU0hV0uY7c= Received: from mail-qt1-f198.google.com (mail-qt1-f198.google.com [209.85.160.198]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-299-aQ7YAlGXMWi3uX_yhGZY0A-1; Mon, 18 Nov 2024 22:28:40 -0500 X-MC-Unique: aQ7YAlGXMWi3uX_yhGZY0A-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: aQ7YAlGXMWi3uX_yhGZY0A Received: by mail-qt1-f198.google.com with SMTP id d75a77b69052e-460aca6cd0bso6031711cf.0 for ; Mon, 18 Nov 2024 19:28:40 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1731986920; x=1732591720; 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=r8PlemWAggT45hfxEfheUGm2fsh9572BEWCOzq6YZBo=; b=UJLjxAjP6DNfvrz0hBCQ9S191VadG1sS1Lwmt3d/JET2EZP10tStsNGOVH4SiEI9yr z/RR5RLDUjNbjfZ4qBfvtp9dlMmUdkSBQHIb4IsW1m9HRRXfNXN+GYTyx3Uv8Pjn4Gf/ bHXySJTjgay6UN/JqK+r7C3TpYAlfpERhHMG5lD6yOK1KX4BB6dvqpJfvSUKSxW8hwaH 7j4aNacwi8p9P9D4qC4ZuA5/oCuvrIn8EmU2qZvNYlzb2abgMtu5dMzjoALg2WTsCI1F K3z55Le5jVaJ9l5GuSeRznbQnhcl/YLiVWJ3tzg8crFJDjsdqvvd4e+JLTHBPuUJERSK zVgQ== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCXlj9e9oEzvzAZPwHP0ncijqc/1/QnfCaaCKGQYAgtdCBbS0aCktBguPfRL9806SV/l+OK/oryieS+hUkY=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwkZua13tOwi27ZTNufDN3kzhAPGsHbWlbbVFtPP8OYO7oy2JtW D39n5I3eX+1JJeyrUmPtF7ealY/alzAr0eVs6C5WHgHHR3yMDgGMqRuoWU0LnYW+YDmfmwmwzLh EnoBb7f8ZKj4MGfr3JNKGvJs7x7TcQzHP0073qfdQI4FnsSCd1k0XwPhCKM4IVg== X-Received: by 2002:ac8:7c55:0:b0:461:20b0:9909 with SMTP id d75a77b69052e-46363e3504dmr199036141cf.29.1731986920148; Mon, 18 Nov 2024 19:28:40 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEdAeoC11ngzyylbKnDevm2EAHvD6G1i4Vrhlv5MIh5VT/D/Pe5FLQLw+zX3Y6Y55RoNo7Ozg== X-Received: by 2002:ac8:7c55:0:b0:461:20b0:9909 with SMTP id d75a77b69052e-46363e3504dmr199036011cf.29.1731986919788; Mon, 18 Nov 2024 19:28:39 -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 d75a77b69052e-46392bc364csm6120171cf.48.2024.11.18.19.28.38 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 18 Nov 2024 19:28:39 -0800 (PST) From: Waiman Long X-Google-Original-From: Waiman Long Message-ID: Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2024 22:28:38 -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> <5a878687-9d08-472e-a387-02b2a150d2df@redhat.com> Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <5a878687-9d08-472e-a387-02b2a150d2df@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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. Cheers, Longman