[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <caabddb6-2c36-1372-e94c-9a50c659f5fb@atomlin.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2025 21:14:45 +0000 (GMT)
From: Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@...mlin.com>
To: oleg@...hat.com, frederic@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org
cc: nick.lange@...il.com, seun.ewulomi@...il.com, mtosatti@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] sched/isolation: Warn when maxcpus= is specified
with nohz_full= or isolcpus=
On Sun, 1 Dec 2024, Aaron Tomlin wrote:
> Hi Oleg, Frederic, Peter,
>
> I have seen a case where maxcpus=1 and e.g. nohz_full=1,3-31, was used to
> force the CPU affinity of certain unbound or non CPU-specific kernel
> threads at boot-time. Albeit, since commit 9cc5b8656892a ("isolcpus: Affine
> unbound kernel threads to housekeeping cpus") this is handled entirely via
> nohz_full=. I thought it might be worth adding a warning.
>
>
> Aaron Tomlin (1):
> sched/isolation: Warn when maxcpus= is specified with nohz_full= or
> isolcpus=
>
> kernel/sched/isolation.c | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> --
> 2.47.1
Hi Oleg, Frederic, Peter,
Any thoughts?
--
Aaron Tomlin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists