[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:0.089 / U:3.704 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site