lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jun]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Inquiry: Should we remove "isolcpus= kernel boot option? (may have realtime uses)
On Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 11:39:34AM -0700, Max Krasnyansky wrote:
> Ah, I know exactly what you're talking about. However this is non-issue these
> days. In order to clear cpuN from all the timers and other things all you need
> to do is to bring that cpu off-line
> echo 0 > /sys/devices/cpu/cpuN/online
> and then bring it back online
> echo 1 > /sys/devices/cpu/cpuN/online

Although it seemed like something of a hack, we experimented with this
previously and found that it didn't work reliably. I'm sure things
have gotten better, but will need to revisit.

>
> There are currently a couple of issues with scheduler domains and hotplug
> event handling. I do have the fix for them, and Paul had already acked it.

Until a proven reliable method for doing this is firmly in place (as
firmly as anything is, anyway), I don't think we should be removing
the alternative.

> initialization). See my latest "default IRQ affinity" patch.

Nice idea.

> Also isolcpus= conflicts with the scheduler domains created by the cpusets.

What sort of conflict are we talking about? I assume once you've begun setting up cpusets that include those cpus that you're intention is to change the original behavior.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-06-02 23:45    [W:0.090 / U:0.040 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site