[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080604200350.GL20824@one.firstfloor.org>
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 22:03:50 +0200
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Paul Jackson <pj@....com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, maxk@...lcomm.com,
ioe-lkml@...eria.de, sivanich@....com, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...ivas.org, dfults@....com,
devik@....cz, dino@...ibm.com, emmanuel.pacaud@...v-poitiers.fr,
deweerdt@...e.fr, mingo@...e.hu, colpatch@...ibm.com,
nickpiggin@...oo.com.au, rostedt@...dmis.org, oleg@...sign.ru,
paulmck@...ibm.com, menage@...gle.com, rddunlap@...l.org,
suresh.b.siddha@...el.com, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: Inquiry: Should we remove "isolcpus= kernel boot option? (may have realtime uses)
> We (SGI) routinely handle that need with a custom init program,
> invoked with the init= parameter to the booting kernel, which
> sets up cpusets and then invokes the normal (real) init program
> in a cpuset configured to exclude those CPUs and nodes which we
> want to remain unloaded. For example, on a 256 CPU, 64 node
> system, we might have init running on a single node of 4 CPUs,
> and leave the remaining 63 nodes and 252 CPUs isolated from all
> the usual user level daemons started by init.
>
> There is no need for additional kernel changes to accomplish this.
There are no additional changes needed, but you must admit that isolcpus
is a much more elegant solutation for this problem than hijacking init.
-Andi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists