On Tue, 2015-02-24 at 09:13 -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On 02/23/2015 09:18 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Mon, 2015-02-23 at 16:45 -0500, r...@redhat.com wrote:
> >> Ensure that cpus specified with the isolcpus= boot commandline
> >> option stay outside of the load balancing in the kernel
> >> scheduler.
> >>
> >> Operations like load balancing can introduce unwanted latencies,
> >> which is exactly what the isolcpus= commandline is there to
> >> prevent.
> >>
> >> Previously, simply creating a new cpuset, without even touching
> >> the cpuset.cpus field inside the new cpuset, would undo the
> >> effects of isolcpus=, by creating a scheduler domain spanning the
> >> whole system, and setting up load balancing inside that domain.
> >> The cpuset root cpuset.cpus file is read-only, so there was not
> >> even a way to undo that effect.
> >>
> >> This does not impact the majority of cpusets users, since
> >> isolcpus= is a fairly specialized feature used for realtime
> >> purposes.
> >
> > 3/3: nohz_full cpus become part of that unified isolated map?
>
> There may be use cases where users want nohz_full, but still
> want the scheduler to automatically load balance the CPU.
>
> I am not sure whether we want nohz_full and isolcpus to always
> overlap 100%.
>
> On the other hand, any CPU that is isolated with isolcpus=
> probably wants nohz_full...
I can't imagine caring deeply about the tiny interference of the tick,
yet not caring about the massive interference of load balancing.
-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/
