[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150718133602.GA3041@lerouge>
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2015 15:36:03 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
"Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" <lclaudio@...g.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] workqueue: avoiding unbounded wq on isolated CPUs by
default
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 07:15:48PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-07-17 at 11:27 -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> > I'm just curious whether there was any specific reason we didn't do
> > this before (ISTR people discussing it back then too).
>
> I'm dead set against all this auto-presume nonsense fwtw Allocating a
> pool of no_hz_full _capable_ CPUs should not entice the kernel to make
> any rash assumptions. Let users do the button poking, they know what
> they want, and when they want it.
We need to make a choice then. Either we do all the affinity tuning from
userspace with a common tool, which is what I had wished before everybody
asked for pre-settings.
Or we do it in the kernel, now we should define some kind of CONFIG_ISOLATION
to make that proper and rule the various kinds of isolation people are
interested in.
But we can't leave it half-way like it is currently with everything preset on
top of nohz: rcu nocb mask, watchdog mask, cpu_isolation_map and exclude workqueue.
--
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