From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932954Ab2GCL2k (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Jul 2012 07:28:40 -0400 Received: from mail-yw0-f51.google.com ([209.85.213.51]:61883 "EHLO mail-yw0-f51.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755913Ab2GCL2i (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Jul 2012 07:28:38 -0400 Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 13:28:31 +0200 From: Frederic Weisbecker To: Luming Yu Cc: LKML , gilad@benyossef.com Subject: Re: CPU isolation question again Message-ID: <20120703112828.GA28294@somewhere> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 09:22:09PM +0800, Luming Yu wrote: > Hi there, > > I noticed some discussion about CPU isolation which points me to the > patch set (https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/8/15/245). I'm currently > preparing a RFC-patch-set to automatically pick up a few suitable CPUs > to isolate then kick them out of service for a while. We need to > balance between thermal & power management And overall system > performance during this operation as much as possible. So > software-cpu-online-offline interface could not be a good option to > me. But to make sure I'm not blindly running on a dead-end path, I'd > check with experts here to ensure it makes some sense to isolate CPUs > to this level, and the idea also makes some sense, and the most > important is it's not implemented yet. I don't understand what you are trying to do and how exactly. How do you plan to do this isolation and how do you want to balance between thermal and power?