[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220527083018.n43nc73vuuzm5ixo@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Fri, 27 May 2022 10:30:18 +0200
From: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>,
Zefan Li <lizefan.x@...edance.com>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...nel.org>,
Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenz@...nel.org>,
rcu@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/4] cpuset: Support RCU-NOCB toggle on v2 root
partitions
Hi,
On 26/05/22 14:37, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 08:28:43PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> > I am thinking along the line that it will not be hierarchical. However,
> > cpuset can be useful if we want to have multiple isolated partitions
> > underneath the top cpuset with different isolation attributes, but no more
> > sub-isolated partition with sub-attributes underneath them. IOW, we can only
> > set them at the first level under top_cpuset. Will that be useful?
>
> At that point, I'd just prefer to have it under /proc or /sys.
FWIW, I was under the impression that this would nicely fit along the
side of other feaures towards implenting dynamic isolation of CPUs (say
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220510153413.400020-1-longman@redhat.com/
for example). Wouldn't be awkward to have to poke different places to
achieve isolation at runtime?
Also, I wonder if a proc/sys interface might be problematic for certain
middleware that is substantially based on using cgroups. I'll try to ask
around. :)
Best,
Juri
Powered by blists - more mailing lists