lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Oct]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] sched/core: Don't mix isolcpus and housekeeping CPUs
* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> [2018-10-24 12:15:08]:

> On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 03:16:46PM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > * Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net> [2018-10-24 09:56:36]:
> >
> > > On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 08:32:49AM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > > It would certainly be a bit odd because the
> > > application is asking for some protection but no guarantees are given
> > > and the application is not made aware via an error code that there is a
> > > problem. Asking the application to parse dmesg hoping to find the right
> > > error message is going to be fragile.
> >
> > Its a actually a good question.
> > What should we be doing if a mix of isolcpus and housekeeping (aka
> > non-isolcpus) is given in the mask.
> >
> > Right now as you pointed, there is no easy way for the application to know
> > which are the non-isolcpus to set its affinity. cpusets effective_cpus and
> > cpus_allowed both will contain isolcpus too.
>
> The easy option is to not use isolcpus :-) It is a horrifically bad
> interface.

Agree, but thats something thats been exposed long time back.
Do we have an option to remove that? Hopefully nobody is using it.

--
Thanks and Regards
Srikar Dronamraju

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-10-24 12:41    [W:0.048 / U:9.896 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site