[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171023120631.dkpymlvfavh4zmpn@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 14:06:31 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...lanox.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@...hat.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Introduce housekeeping subsystem v4
* Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org> wrote:
> In fact, CPU affinity is the only high level concept I found to gather all these
> housekeeping elements.
>
> Perhaps I should use "cpu_isolation" instead of "housekeeping" naming.
The problem with names based on that, like cpu_isolation_map, is that there's
really two concepts here: there's the isolcpus feature where the 'mask' is in fact
the CPUs that are isolated - while the 'housekeeping CPUs' is the mask of CPUs
that _support_ the isolated set of CPUs. The two are different roles but easily
confused if named similarly.
So I guess 'housekeeping CPUs' is as good as it gets for now.
Mind sending a refreshed queue against the latest kernel? There's some new
conflicts in kernel/watchdog.c for example.
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists