On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 08:53:56PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Aug 2017, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 06:24:16PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 05:27:15PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > > Although for example I guess (IIU
On Mon, 28 Aug 2017, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 06:24:16PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 05:27:15PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > Although for example I guess (IIUC) that if you create an unbound
> > > timer on a NULL domain, it will be
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 06:24:16PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 05:27:15PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 03:31:16PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > > I'm fairly sure that was very intentional. If you want to isolate stuff
> > > you don't
On Mon, 28 Aug 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Well, ideally something like this would start the system with all the
> 'crap' threads in !root cgroup. But that means cgroupfs needs to be
> populated with at least two directories on boot. And current cgroup
> cruft doesn't expect that.
Maybe an affi
On Mon, 28 Aug 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > I think that change is good maybe even a bugfix. I had some people be very
> > surprised when they set affinities to multiple cpus and the processeds
> > kept sticking to one cpu because of isolcpus.
>
> Those people cannot read. And no its not a bug
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 05:27:15PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 03:31:16PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > I'm fairly sure that was very intentional. If you want to isolate stuff
> > you don't want load-balancing.
>
> Yes I guess that was intentional. In fact havin
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 03:31:16PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 03:23:06PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 12:09:57PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 03:51:11AM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > > We want to ce
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 03:23:06PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 12:09:57PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 03:51:11AM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > We want to centralize the isolation features on the housekeeping
> > > subsystem and
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 12:09:57PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 03:51:11AM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > We want to centralize the isolation features on the housekeeping
> > subsystem and scheduler isolation is a significant part of it.
> >
> > While at it, this i
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 09:55:51AM -0500, Christopher Lameter wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2017, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>
> > While at it, this is a proposition for a reimplementation of isolcpus=
> > that doesn't involve scheduler domain isolation. Therefore this
> > brings a behaviour change: al
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 03:51:11AM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> We want to centralize the isolation features on the housekeeping
> subsystem and scheduler isolation is a significant part of it.
>
> While at it, this is a proposition for a reimplementation of isolcpus=
> that doesn't involve
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 09:55:51AM -0500, Christopher Lameter wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2017, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>
> > While at it, this is a proposition for a reimplementation of isolcpus=
> > that doesn't involve scheduler domain isolation. Therefore this
> > brings a behaviour change: al
On Wed, 23 Aug 2017, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> While at it, this is a proposition for a reimplementation of isolcpus=
> that doesn't involve scheduler domain isolation. Therefore this
> brings a behaviour change: all user tasks inherit init/1 affinity which
> avoid the isolcpus= range. But if
13 matches
Mail list logo
