[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1708281151410.803@nuc-kabylake>
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 11:53:46 -0500 (CDT)
From: Christopher Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...lanox.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@...hat.com>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 12/12] housekeeping: Reimplement isolcpus on
housekeeping
On Mon, 28 Aug 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Well, ideally something like this would start the system with all the
> 'crap' threads in !root cgroup. But that means cgroupfs needs to be
> populated with at least two directories on boot. And current cgroup
> cruft doesn't expect that.
Maybe an affinity mask for bootup will take care of that? I once wrote an
init wrapper that restricted the number of cpus for the threads that init
spawns but we can probably do much better.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists