[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171027135831.GZ3165@worktop.lehotels.local>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 15:58:31 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: cmetcalf@...lanox.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, hpa@...or.com,
riel@...hat.com, cl@...ux.com, mingo@...nel.org, efault@....de,
frederic@...nel.org, kernellwp@...il.com,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, lcapitulino@...hat.com
Cc: linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:sched/core] sched/isolation: Document the isolcpus= flags
On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 05:06:25AM -0700, tip-bot for Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> + isolcpus= [KNL,SMP] Isolate a given set of CPUs from disturbance.
> + Format: [flag-list,]<cpu-list>
> +
> + Specify one or more CPUs to isolate from disturbances
> + specified in the flag list (default: domain):
> +
> + nohz
> + Disable the tick when a single task runs.
> + domain
> + Isolate from the general SMP balancing and scheduling
> + algorithms. This option is the preferred way to isolate
> + CPUs from tasks.
I _strongly_ object to this statement, isolcpus is _not_ the preferred
way, cpusets are.
And yes, while cpusets suffers some problems, we _should_ really fix
those and not promote this piece of shit isolcpus crap.
> The alternative -- manually setting the
> + CPU mask of all tasks in the system, can cause problems
> + and suboptimal load balancer performance. You can move a
> + process onto or off an "isolated" CPU via the CPU
> + affinity syscalls or cpuset. <cpu number> begins at 0
> + and the maximum value is "number of CPUs in system - 1".
> +
> + The format of <cpu-list> is described above.
> +
Powered by blists - more mailing lists