We allow nested partition setup. So there can be a child partition underneath a parent partition. So this is OK.The failing test isn't an isolated partition. The actual test failure isRight, and is this problematic already?
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
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.
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?