[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <48470250.6010803@compro.net>
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2008 17:00:00 -0400
From: Mark Hounschell <markh@...pro.net>
To: Paul Jackson <pj@....com>
CC: Mark Hounschell <dmarkh@....rr.com>, nickpiggin@...oo.com.au,
a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, ioe-lkml@...eria.de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...ivas.org, dfults@....com,
devik@....cz, sivanich@....com, dino@...ibm.com,
emmanuel.pacaud@...v-poitiers.fr, deweerdt@...e.fr, mingo@...e.hu,
colpatch@...ibm.com, maxk@...lcomm.com, 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)
Paul Jackson wrote:
> Mark wrote:
>> What is an abonination, is that cpusets are equired for this type of
>> isolation to begin with, even on a 2 processor machine.
>
> Just to be sure I'm following you here, you stating that you
> want to be able to manipulate the isolated cpu map at runtime,
> not just with the boot option isolcpus, right?
> Where this
> isolated cpu map works just fine even on systems which do
> not have cpusets configured, right?
>
Yes to both questions. However after reading Max and Peter's response, I
guess there is another, probably better or _only_, way to get what I really
need anyway so please don't consider my intrusion into this thread as a NAK.
I do not rely on this option as it is implemented.
Regards
Mark
--
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