[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YpTDq6Z/+hp+CHwf@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 30 May 2022 15:16:27 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.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
On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 12:56:50PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > This is ABI, you can't walk back on it. I would suggest starting with an
> > 'all feature' isolation. Only if there's real demand for something more
> > fine-grained add that on top. Simple first etc.
>
> That's actually my worry. If we start with an all in one ABI, how do we later
> mix that up with more finegrained features? Like what will be the behaviour of:
>
> cpuset.isolation.rcu_nocb = 0
> cpuset.isolation.all = 1
Well clearly that doesn't make sense. I was more thinking along the
lines of cgroup.subtree_control, where instead all features are enabled
by default.
But only if there's a real usecase, otherwise there's no point in
providing such knobs.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists