From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753352AbbBXO3e (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Feb 2015 09:29:34 -0500 Received: from mail-wg0-f48.google.com ([74.125.82.48]:42201 "EHLO mail-wg0-f48.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753235AbbBXO3d (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Feb 2015 09:29:33 -0500 Message-ID: <1424788170.5419.16.camel@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] cpusets,isolcpus: resolve conflict between cpusets and isolcpus From: Mike Galbraith To: Rik van Riel Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 15:29:30 +0100 In-Reply-To: <54EC86F0.8080107@redhat.com> References: <1424727906-4460-1-git-send-email-riel@redhat.com> <1424744326.10678.4.camel@gmail.com> <54EC86F0.8080107@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.9 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2015-02-24 at 09:13 -0500, Rik van Riel wrote: > On the other hand, any CPU that is isolated with isolcpus= > probably wants nohz_full... Not here. I isolate (via cpusets) for a 60 core rt load, but it's not single task/core, and doesn't like the nohz_full overhead. -Mike