[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150512114809.GL21418@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Tue, 12 May 2015 13:48:09 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:	Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...hip.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Gilad Ben Yossef <giladb@...hip.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: CONFIG_ISOLATION=y (was: [PATCH 0/6] support "dataplane" mode
 for nohz_full)
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 11:10:32AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> So I'd vote for Frederic's CONFIG_ISOLATION=y, mostly because this is 
> a high level kernel feature, so it won't conflict with isolation 
> concepts in lower level subsystems such as IOMMU isolation - and other 
> higher level features like scheduler isolation are basically another 
> partial implementation we want to merge with all this...
> 
But why do we need a CONFIG flag for something that has no content?
That is, I do not see anything much; except the 'I want to stay in
userspace and kill me otherwise' flag, and I'm not sure that warrants a
CONFIG flag like this.
Other than that, its all a combination of NOHZ_FULL and cpusets/isolcpus
and whatnot.
--
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
 
