[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1378795659.6046.41.camel@marge.simpson.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 08:47:39 +0200
From: Mike Galbraith <bitbucket@...ine.de>
To: Gilad Ben-Yossef <gilad@...yossef.com>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Restrict kernel spawning of threads to a specified set of
cpus.
On Tue, 2013-09-10 at 09:05 +0300, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 11:07 PM, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com> wrote:
> > I am not sure how to call this kernel option but we need something like
> > that. I see drivers and the kernel spawning processes on the nohz cores.
> > The name kthread is not really catching the purpose.
> >
> > os_cpus=? highlatency_cpus=?
> >
>
> First off, thank you for doing this. It is very useful :-)
>
> Currently if one wishes to run a single task on an isolated CPU with
> as little interference as possible, one needs to pass
> rcu_nocbs, isolcpus, nohz_full parameters and now kthread parameter,
> all pretty much with the same values
>
> I know some people won't like this, but can we perhaps fold all these
> into a single parameter, perhaps even the existing isolcpus?
isolcpus is supposed to go away, as cpusets can isolate CPUs, and can
turn off load balancing.
-Mike
--
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