On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 07:15:48PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Fri, 2015-07-17 at 11:27 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote: > > > I'm just curious whether there was any specific reason we didn't do > > this before (ISTR people discussing it back then too). > > I'm dead set against all this auto-presume nonsense fwtw Allocating a > pool of no_hz_full _capable_ CPUs should not entice the kernel to make > any rash assumptions. Let users do the button poking, they know what > they want, and when they want it.
We need to make a choice then. Either we do all the affinity tuning from userspace with a common tool, which is what I had wished before everybody asked for pre-settings. Or we do it in the kernel, now we should define some kind of CONFIG_ISOLATION to make that proper and rule the various kinds of isolation people are interested in. But we can't leave it half-way like it is currently with everything preset on top of nohz: rcu nocb mask, watchdog mask, cpu_isolation_map and exclude workqueue. -- 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/
