On Tue, 10 Sep 2013, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote: > On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Mike Galbraith <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hammering on the wrong spot makes removing isolcpus take longer, and > > adds up to more hammering in the long run, no? Hearing you mention > > isolcpus, I just thought I should mention that it wants to go away, so > > might not be the optimal spot for isolation related tinkering. > > > OK, so I'll bite - isolcpu currently has special magic to do its thing but > AFAIK > part of the reason isolcpu works "better" (for some definition of > better, for some > work loads) is simply because it blocks migration earlier than you get with > cpusets. > > What if we re-did the implementation of isolcpu as creating an > cpuset with migration off as early as possible in the boot process, prior to > spawning init? > > So basically, isolcpus becomes just a way to configure a cpuset early?
I surely wish we had the ability to use tickless without the need for things like cpusets etc. isolcpus is broken as far as I can tell. Lets lay it to rest and come up with a sane way to configure these things. Autoconfig if possible. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
