[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1430195804.3168.19.camel@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 06:36:44 +0200
From: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...aro.org>,
Mike Galbraith <bitbucket@...ine.de>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3 V8] workqueue: Allow modifying low level unbound
workqueue cpumask
On Mon, 2015-04-27 at 23:44 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > So, we need an API to modify the wq_unbound_cpumask, and I provided
> > this public function. Otherwise, the other code can't modify it.
>
> I see. I don't have too strong an opinion; however, changing the mask
> is a fairly heavy operation. Are there specific reasons why we don't
> want to follow the nohz config right away?
Isolation is not only applicable to nohz_full. Many loads are
unsuitable for nohz_full, yet require maximum isolation.
ATM, nohz_full is not dynamic, but hopefully one day will be. In the
here and now, we can isolate cores from the scheduler on the fly via
cpusets, a prime API user candidate.
-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