[lkml]   [2008]   [Jun]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Inquiry: Should we remove "isolcpus= kernel boot option? (may have realtime uses)
    On Tue, 2008-06-03 at 00:35 +0200, Ingo Oeser wrote:
    > Hi Paul,
    > in short: NAK!
    > On Monday 02 June 2008, Paul Jackson wrote:
    > > (Aside to the RealTime folks -- is there a 'realtime'
    > > email list which I should include in this discussion?)
    > >
    > > The kernel has a "isolcpus=" kernel boot time parameter. This
    > > parameter isolates CPUs from scheduler load balancing, minimizing the
    > > impact of scheduler latencies on realtime tasks running on those CPUs.
    > I used it to mask out a defect CPU on a 8-CPU node of a
    > HPC-cluster at a customer site, until the $BIG_VENDOR
    > sent a replacement. And to prove $BIG_VENDOR, that we actually
    > have a problem on THAT CPU.
    > So I would really like to keep this fault isolation capability.
    > I made my customer happy with that.
    > I wish Linux had more such "mask out bad hardware" features
    > to faciliate fault isolation and boot and runtime.

    Yeah - except that its not meant to be used as such - it will still
    brings the cpu up, and it is still usable for the OS.

    So sorry, your abuse doesn't make for a case to keep this abomination.

     \ /
      Last update: 2008-06-03 00:51    [W:0.019 / U:1.556 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site