[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <561BF5EB.8080006@ezchip.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 14:03:23 -0400
From: Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...hip.com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.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 10/12/2015 01:42 PM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> 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)
Well, it only sort of conflicts. I think given that they would be clearly
documented they are different enough not to create too much
confusion. And cpu_isolation really does seem like a good name.
--
Chris Metcalf, EZChip Semiconductor
http://www.ezchip.com
--
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