Re: [PATCH] cpuset: Enforce that a child's cpus must be a subset of the parent

[Zefan Li]

On 2018/5/31 9:25, Zefan Li wrote:
> Hi Waiman,
> 
> On 2018/5/30 21:46, Waiman Long wrote:
>> It was found that the cpuset.cpus could contain CPUs that are not listed
>> in their parent's cpu list as shown by the command sequence below:
>>
>>   # echo "+cpuset" >cgroup.subtree_control
>>   # mkdir g1
>>   # echo 0-5 >g1/cpuset.cpus
>>   # mkdir g1/g11
>>   # echo "+cpuset" > g1/cgroup.subtree_control
>>   # echo 6-11 >g1/g11/cpuset.cpus
>>   # grep -R . g1 | grep "\.cpus"
>>   g1/cpuset.cpus:0-5
>>   g1/cpuset.cpus.effective:0-5
>>   g1/g11/cpuset.cpus:6-11
>>   g1/g11/cpuset.cpus.effective:0-5
>>
>> As the intersection of g11's cpus and that of g1 is empty, the effective
>> cpus of g11 is just that of g1. The check in update_cpumask() is now
>> corrected to make sure that cpus in a child cpus must be a subset of
>> its parent's cpus. The error "write error: Invalid argument" will now
>> be reported in the above case.
>>
> 
> We made the distinction between user-configured CPUs and effective CPUs
> in commit 7e88291beefbb758, so actually it's not a bug.
> 

I remember the original reason is to support restoration of the original
cpu after cpu offline->online. We use user-configured CPUs to remember
if the cpu should be restored in the cpuset after it's onlined.