[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2016 10:34:16 -0800
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...hip.com>
Cc: Gilad Ben Yossef <giladb@...hip.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Rik van Riel" <riel@...hat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
<linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 05/12] task_isolation: support CONFIG_TASK_ISOLATION_ALL
Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...hip.com> writes:
>
> +config TASK_ISOLATION_ALL
> + bool "Provide task isolation on all CPUs by default (except CPU 0)"
> + depends on TASK_ISOLATION
> + help
> + If the user doesn't pass the task_isolation boot option to
> + define the range of task isolation CPUs, consider that all
> + CPUs in the system are task isolation by default.
> + Note the boot CPU will still be kept outside the range to
> + handle timekeeping duty, etc.
That seems like a very dangerous Kconfig option.
"CONFIG_BREAK_EVERYTHING"
If someone sets that by default they will have a lot of trouble.
I wouldn't add that, make it a run time option only.
-Andi
--
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only
Powered by blists - more mailing lists