On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 06:25:26PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> Frederic Weisbecker's on January 17, 2019 3:54 am:
> > On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 04:47:45PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> >> We have a supercomputer site testing nohz_full to reduce jitter with
> >> good results, but they want CPU0
Frederic Weisbecker's on January 17, 2019 3:54 am:
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 04:47:45PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
>> We have a supercomputer site testing nohz_full to reduce jitter with
>> good results, but they want CPU0 to be nohz_full. That happens to be
>> the boot CPU, which is disallowed
On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 04:47:45PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> We have a supercomputer site testing nohz_full to reduce jitter with
> good results, but they want CPU0 to be nohz_full. That happens to be
> the boot CPU, which is disallowed by the nohz_full code.
>
> They have existing job
We have a supercomputer site testing nohz_full to reduce jitter with
good results, but they want CPU0 to be nohz_full. That happens to be
the boot CPU, which is disallowed by the nohz_full code.
They have existing job scheduling code which wants this, I don't know
too much detail beyond that, but
4 matches
Mail list logo