From: Pekka Enberg
Date: Wed Aug 26 2009 - 11:22:29 EST

Hi Peter,

On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 8:31 AM, Peter Zijlstra<peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Is it the whole concept of isolating one or more cpus from all normal
>> kernel tasks that you don't like, or just this particular implementation?
>> I ask because I know of at least one project that would have used this
>> capability had it been available.  As it stands they have to live with
>> the usual kernel threads running on the cpu that they're trying to
>> dedicate to their app.
> Its the simple fact of going around the kernel instead of using the
> kernel.
> Going around the kernel doesn't benefit anybody, least of all Linux.
> So its the concept of running stuff on a CPU outside of Linux that I
> don't like. I mean, if you want that, go ahead and run RTLinux, RTAI,
> L4-Linux etc.. lots of special non-Linux hypervisor/exo-kernel like
> things around for you to run things outside Linux with.

Out of curiosity, what's the problem with it? Why can't the scheduler
be taught to bind one user-space thread on a given CPU and make sure
no other threads are scheduled on that CPU? I'm not a scheduler expert
but that seems like a logical extension to the current cpuset logic
and would help the low-latency workload Christoph has described in the

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at