[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4800c9fd-2fbd-df35-cfa9-c048f9fe8b11@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2020 09:30:03 +0800
From: 王贇 <yun.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
"open list:SCHEDULER" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] why can't dynamic isolation just like the static way
On 2020/2/11 下午7:43, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 04:17:34PM +0800, 王贇 wrote:
>> Hi, folks
>>
>> We are dealing with isolcpus these days and try to do the isolation
>> dynamically.
>>
>> The kernel doc lead us into the cpuset.sched_load_balance, it's fine
>> to achieve the dynamic isolation with it, however we got problem with
>> the systemd stuff.
>
> Then don't use systemd :-) Also, if systemd is the problem, why are you
> bugging us?
Well, that's... fair enough :-P
What we try to understand is why dynamic isolation is so different with
the way of static isolation, is it not good to have a simple way instead?
Regards,
Michael Wang
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists