From: Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Cc: maxk@qualcomm.com, ioe-lkml@rameria.de, sivanich@sgi.com,
a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
kernel@kolivas.org, dfults@sgi.com, devik@cdi.cz,
dino@in.ibm.com, emmanuel.pacaud@univ-poitiers.fr,
deweerdt@free.fr, mingo@elte.hu, colpatch@us.ibm.com,
nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au, rostedt@goodmis.org, oleg@tv-sign.ru,
paulmck@us.ibm.com, menage@google.com, rddunlap@osdl.org,
suresh.b.siddha@intel.com, tglx@linutronix.de
Subject: Re: Inquiry: Should we remove "isolcpus= kernel boot option? (may have realtime uses)
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 12:41:26 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080604124126.0d281a99.pj@sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <877id5v1fg.fsf@basil.nowhere.org>
Andi wrote:
> Right now the system boot could put pages from some daemon in there before any
> cpusets are set up and there's no easy way to get them away again
We (SGI) routinely handle that need with a custom init program,
invoked with the init= parameter to the booting kernel, which
sets up cpusets and then invokes the normal (real) init program
in a cpuset configured to exclude those CPUs and nodes which we
want to remain unloaded. For example, on a 256 CPU, 64 node
system, we might have init running on a single node of 4 CPUs,
and leave the remaining 63 nodes and 252 CPUs isolated from all
the usual user level daemons started by init.
There is no need for additional kernel changes to accomplish this.
--
I won't rest till it's the best ...
Programmer, Linux Scalability
Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> 1.940.382.4214
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-06-04 17:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 60+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-06-02 2:30 Inquiry: Should we remove "isolcpus= kernel boot option? (may have realtime uses) Paul Jackson
2008-06-02 16:42 ` Dimitri Sivanich
2008-06-02 18:39 ` Max Krasnyansky
2008-06-02 21:41 ` Dimitri Sivanich
2008-06-02 21:59 ` Max Krasnyansky
2008-06-03 14:40 ` Dimitri Sivanich
2008-06-03 17:57 ` Max Krasnyanskiy
2008-06-04 14:00 ` Dimitri Sivanich
2008-06-04 18:07 ` Stop machine threads are getting preemted by the rt period enforcement Max Krasnyansky
2008-06-04 18:18 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-06-04 18:24 ` Max Krasnyansky
2008-06-04 18:55 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-06-04 20:14 ` Max Krasnyansky
2008-06-02 22:35 ` Inquiry: Should we remove "isolcpus= kernel boot option? (may have realtime uses) Ingo Oeser
2008-06-02 22:45 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-06-02 23:04 ` Max Krasnyansky
2008-06-02 23:55 ` Ingo Oeser
2008-06-03 3:32 ` Max Krasnyansky
2008-06-03 23:47 ` Max Krasnyanskiy
2008-06-04 0:41 ` Paul Jackson
2008-06-04 4:32 ` Max Krasnyansky
2008-06-04 4:47 ` Paul Jackson
2008-06-04 12:18 ` Andi Kleen
2008-06-04 17:41 ` Paul Jackson [this message]
2008-06-04 18:29 ` Max Krasnyansky
2008-06-04 18:56 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-06-04 19:34 ` Max Krasnyansky
2008-06-04 18:58 ` Paul Jackson
2008-06-04 19:31 ` Max Krasnyansky
2008-06-04 19:37 ` Paul Jackson
2008-06-04 19:45 ` Max Krasnyansky
2008-06-04 20:05 ` Andi Kleen
2008-06-04 20:23 ` Paul Jackson
2008-06-04 20:03 ` Andi Kleen
2008-06-04 20:16 ` Paul Jackson
2008-06-04 20:33 ` Andi Kleen
2008-06-04 20:38 ` Paul Jackson
2008-06-04 21:16 ` Max Krasnyansky
2008-06-04 21:17 ` Paul Jackson
2008-06-04 21:20 ` Max Krasnyansky
2008-06-04 21:26 ` Paul Jackson
2008-06-04 1:18 ` Nick Piggin
2008-06-04 3:00 ` Max Krasnyansky
2008-06-04 16:18 ` Ingo Oeser
2008-06-04 17:47 ` Max Krasnyansky
2008-06-03 6:03 ` Nick Piggin
2008-06-04 9:58 ` Mark Hounschell
2008-06-04 17:26 ` Paul Jackson
2008-06-04 21:00 ` Mark Hounschell
2008-06-04 21:03 ` Paul Jackson
2008-06-04 19:26 ` Max Krasnyansky
2008-06-04 20:25 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-06-04 21:44 ` Michael Trimarchi
2008-06-04 21:52 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-06-05 11:16 ` Michael Trimarchi
2008-06-05 12:07 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-06-05 14:57 ` Michael Trimarchi
2009-05-08 2:48 ` GeunSik Lim
2008-06-05 11:44 ` Mark Hounschell
2008-06-06 22:28 ` Max Krasnyanskiy
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20080604124126.0d281a99.pj@sgi.com \
--to=pj@sgi.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=colpatch@us.ibm.com \
--cc=devik@cdi.cz \
--cc=deweerdt@free.fr \
--cc=dfults@sgi.com \
--cc=dino@in.ibm.com \
--cc=emmanuel.pacaud@univ-poitiers.fr \
--cc=ioe-lkml@rameria.de \
--cc=kernel@kolivas.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=maxk@qualcomm.com \
--cc=menage@google.com \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
--cc=oleg@tv-sign.ru \
--cc=paulmck@us.ibm.com \
--cc=rddunlap@osdl.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=sivanich@sgi.com \
--cc=suresh.b.siddha@intel.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox