Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/4] CPUSET driven CPU isolation

[Max Krasnyansky <maxk@qualcomm.com>]

Mark Hounschell wrote:
> Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> My vision on the direction we should take wrt cpu isolation.
>>
>> Next on the list would be figuring out a nice solution to the workqueue
>> flush issue.
>>
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>>
> 
> Is it now the intent, not only that I have to enable cpusets in the
> kernel but I will also have to use them in userland to take advantage of
> this.
> 
> And hot-plug too??
> 
> Can I predict that in the future that userland sched_setaffinity will be
> taken away also and be forced to use cpusets?
> 
> And hot-plug too??

Mark,
I bet you won't get any replies (besides mine). And yes this means that you
will have to enable cpusets if Peter's patches go in (looks like they will).
Hot-plug may not be needed unless I convince people to reuse the hot-plug
instead of introducing new notifiers.
I guess we can make some extensions to expose "system" bit just like I did
with "isolated" bit via sysfs. In which case cpusets may not be needed. We'll see.

Max