[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1509115109.6780.8.camel@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 16:38:29 +0200
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, 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, 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, 2017-10-27 at 15:58 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 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.
+1, isolcpus is the dinosaur that just won't frickn' die.
-Mike
Powered by blists - more mailing lists