From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rik van Riel Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] cpusets,isolcpus: add file to show isolated cpus in cpuset Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 09:35:32 -0500 Message-ID: <54F47534.7070204@redhat.com> References: <1424882288-2910-1-git-send-email-riel@redhat.com> <1424882288-2910-3-git-send-email-riel@redhat.com> <54EEFE15.3010005@huawei.com> <20150226121231.6fcba7e8@annuminas.surriel.com> <20150302090933.GH21418@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <1425300290.5863.17.camel@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1425300290.5863.17.camel-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> Sender: cgroups-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Mike Galbraith , Peter Zijlstra Cc: Zefan Li , linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Clark Williams , Ingo Molnar , Luiz Capitulino , David Rientjes , cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org On 03/02/2015 07:44 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Mon, 2015-03-02 at 10:09 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 12:12:31PM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote: >>> Subject: cpusets,isolcpus: add file to show isolated cpus in cpuset >>> >>> The previous patch makes it so the code skips over isolcpus when >>> building scheduler load balancing domains. This makes it hard to >>> see for a user which of the CPUs in a cpuset are participating in >>> load balancing, and which ones are isolated cpus. >>> >>> Add a cpuset.isolcpus file with info on which cpus in a cpuset are >>> isolated CPUs. >>> >>> This file is read-only for now. In the future we could extend things >>> so isolcpus can be changed at run time, for the root (system wide) >>> cpuset only. >>> >>> Acked-by: David Rientjes >>> Cc: Peter Zijlstra >>> Cc: Clark Williams >>> Cc: Li Zefan >>> Cc: Ingo Molnar >>> Cc: Luiz Capitulino >>> Cc: David Rientjes >>> Cc: Mike Galbraith >>> Cc: cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org >>> Signed-off-by: Rik van Riel >> >> So let me start off by saying I hate isolcpus ;-) >> >> Let me further state that I had hopes we could extend cpusets to >> natively provide the functionality isolcpus has, and kill isolcpus. > > +1 > > That's where nohz_full goop belongs too. Except nohz_full and isolcpus are very much global attributes of each CPU, so I am not sure whether it would make sense to allow configuration of this attribute anywhere other than the root cpuset. -- All rights reversed