On 10/12/2015 01:42 PM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 12:55:24PM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
>On 10/12/2015 12:53 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
>Is it worth starting to think about grouping things under the
>"task isolation" model somehow? "task_isolation_cpus=1-31"
>or some such for this, and then that just sets up the nohz_full
>and isolcpus options under the hood?
Yeah if I could do it again, I would have rather created something like
cpu_isolation= (which name would conflict with isolcpus though)
Well, it only sort of conflicts. I think given that they would be clearly
documented they are different enough not to create too much
confusion. And cpu_isolation really does seem like a good name.
--
Chris Metcalf, EZChip Semiconductor
http://www.ezchip.com
--
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/