------- Comment From [email protected] 2015-04-09 02:55 EDT------- (In reply to comment #36) > > But I'm a bit worried, doesn't not mounting cpuset mean that containers, > > for instance, wouldn't work so well? > > You just won't be able to lock containers to cpusets. > > > That is, even if cgmanager doesn't mount the cpuset cgroup, if > > *anything* mounts it, processes in that cgroup tree will experience the > > underlying issue, no? > > Yes. > > And I still think that systemd is currently mounting it regardless > of cgmanager. > > So ideally the effective_cpus thing would be fixed to work for > non-unified hierarchies.
Ok, so given the situation, I suggest the following: Fixing this in the kernel will be an ugly hack. Moreover, userspace must take care of updating cpusets after hotplug operations. Therefore I see two ways forward: 1. Can systemd/cgmanager (whoever is mounting cgroups) mount cpuset controllers under the unified hierarchy, while mounting the rest under the legacy hierarchy? Here is the suggestion from the community: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/4/6/196. 2. Systemd/cgmanager must have a daemon listening to hotplug events. On hotplug, the parent cgroups cpuset must be percolated down to the children. This is a better solution because the situation where cpus are hotplugged in for the first time (i.e from the cpu_possible_mask to cpu_online_mask), will be handled too. Can either of the above be done in systemd/cgmanager ? Regards Preeti U Murthy -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1392176 Title: mounts cgroups unconditionally which causes undesired effects with cpu hotplug To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/cgmanager/+bug/1392176/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
