Re: [RFC] Restrict kernel spawning of threads to a specified set ofcpus.

[Christoph Lameter]

On Tue, 10 Sep 2013, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Mike Galbraith <bitbucket@xxxxxxxxx> 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 majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/