[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151012174238.GA1113@lerouge>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 19:42:41 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...hip.com>
Cc: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] nohz: Revert "nohz: Set isolcpus when nohz_full is set"
On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 12:55:24PM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> On 10/12/2015 12:53 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> Is it worth starting to think about grouping things under the
> "task isolation" model somehow? "task_isolation_cpus=1-31"
> or some such for this, and then that just sets up the nohz_full
> and isolcpus options under the hood?
Yeah if I could do it again, I would have rather created something like
cpu_isolation= (which name would conflict with isolcpus though) instead
of nohz_full=, because nohz_full= is really just a subset of what people
want.
But yeah if you guys want to create a new parameter that gathers nohz
and isolcpus I think we can.
task_isolation is really just about tasks so it should be another name.
--
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