[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1540492943-17147-1-git-send-email-srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 00:12:20 +0530
From: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Wang <wang.yi59@....com.cn>, zhong.weidong@....com.cn,
Yi Liu <liu.yi24@....com.cn>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
Subject: [PATCH v3 0/3] isolcpus
It looks like cpus_allowed can have a mix of isolcpus and non-isolcpus.
However that seems to cause some inconsistent behaviour esp with numa
balancing.
The first patch will only add a warning whenever a user tries to pass a mask
that has a mix of both isolcpus and nonisolcpus.
The second patch will detect and correct mixed cpumask but silently.
Since set_cpus_allowed_common is under a spinlock, it doesnt add any hints
when it corrects the cpumask.
The third patch returns an error if a user passes a mixed cpumask. Its an
addition to the first patch. However separating it out helps if ever we have
to revert the earlier behaviour. This might cause a change in
sched_setaffinity behaviour when isolcpus is set.
Srikar Dronamraju (3):
sched/core: Warn if cpumask has a mix of isolcpus and housekeeping
CPUs
sched/core: Don't mix isolcpus and housekeeping CPUs
sched/core: Error out if cpumask has a mix of isolcpus and
housekeeping CPUs
kernel/sched/core.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
--
1.8.3.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists