On Tue, 2013-09-10 at 21:10 +0000, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Tue, 10 Sep 2013, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Mike Galbraith <bitbuc...@online.de> > > 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.
Mind saying why? To me, creating properties of exclusive sets of CPUs that the interface which manages sets and their properties is not fully aware of is a dainbramaged thing to do. -Mike -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
