Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 2 Jun 2008 16:41:51 -0500 | From | Dimitri Sivanich <> | Subject | Re: 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.
| |