On Fri, Dec 05, 2025 at 11:00:18AM +0530, Shrikanth Hegde wrote: > > > On 12/4/25 6:58 PM, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote: > > On Wed, 2025-11-19 at 18:14 +0530, Shrikanth Hegde wrote:
... > > Others have already commented on the naming, and I would agree that > > "paravirt" is really misleading. I cannot say that the previous "cpu- > > avoid" one was perfect, but it was much better. It was my suggestion to switch names. cpu-avoid is definitely a no-go. Because it doesn't explain anything and only confuses. I suggested 'paravirt' (notice - only suggested) because the patch series is mainly discussing paravirtualized VMs. But now I'm not even sure that the idea of the series is: 1. Applicable only to paravirtualized VMs; and 2. Preemption and rescheduling throttling requires another in-kernel concept other than nohs, isolcpus, cgroups and similar. Shrikanth, can you please clarify the scope of the new feature? Would it be useful for non-paravirtualized VMs, for example? Any other task-cpu bonding problems? On previous rounds you tried to implement the same with cgroups, as far as I understood. Can you discuss that? What exactly can't be done with the existing kernel APIs? Thanks, Yury > > [1] https://github.com/iii-i/linux/commits/iii/poc/cpu-avoid/v3/ > > Will look into it. one thing to to be careful are CPU numbers.
