From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754156AbeAQRiN (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Jan 2018 12:38:13 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:34938 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750969AbeAQRiM (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Jan 2018 12:38:12 -0500 Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 12:38:01 -0500 From: Luiz Capitulino To: Frederic Weisbecker Cc: Ingo Molnar , LKML , Peter Zijlstra , Chris Metcalf , Thomas Gleixner , Christoph Lameter , "Paul E . McKenney" , Wanpeng Li , Mike Galbraith , Rik van Riel Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] isolation: 1Hz residual tick offloading v3 Message-ID: <20180117123801.11f41f99@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20180116225126.GA32665@lerouge> References: <1515039937-367-1-git-send-email-frederic@kernel.org> <20180112141813.32dcc84d@redhat.com> <20180116154055.GA27042@lerouge> <20180116115211.7fd55c9a@redhat.com> <20180116225126.GA32665@lerouge> Organization: Red Hat MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 23:51:29 +0100 Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 11:52:11AM -0500, Luiz Capitulino wrote: > > On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 16:41:00 +0100 > > Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > > So isolcpus= is now the place where we control the isolation features > > > and nohz is one of them. > > > > That's the part I'm not very sure about. We've been advising users to > > move away from isolcpus= when possible, but this very wanted nohz_offload > > feature will force everyone back to using isolcpus= again. > > Note "isolcpus=nohz" only implies nohz. You need to add "domain" to get > the behaviour that you've been advising users against. We are simply > reusing a kernel parameter that was abandoned to now control the isolation > features that were disorganized and opaque behind nohz. > > > > > I have the impression this series is trying to solve two problems: > > > > 1. How (and where) we control the various isolation features in the > > kernel > > No, that has already been done in the previous merge window. We have a > dedicated isolation subsystem now (kernel/sched/isolation.c) and > an interface to control all these isolation features that were abusively implied > by nohz. The initial plan was to introduce "cpu_isolation=" but it looked too much like > "isolcpus=". Then in fact, why not using "isolcpus=" and give it a second life. > And there we are. OK, I get it now. But then series has to un-deprecate isolcpus= otherwise it doesn't make sense to use it.