From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1751855AbbJLRmt (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 12 Oct 2015 13:42:49 -0400
Received: from mail-wi0-f171.google.com ([209.85.212.171]:35002 "EHLO
	mail-wi0-f171.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751467AbbJLRms (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 12 Oct 2015 13:42:48 -0400
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 19:42:41 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
To: Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@ezchip.com>
Cc: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com>,
        Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>, Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
        Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] nohz: Revert "nohz: Set isolcpus when nohz_full is set"
Message-ID: <20151012174238.GA1113@lerouge>
References: <1444663283-30068-1-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com>
 <20151012153202.GB3910@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20151012162001.GA32228@lerouge>
 <20151012165353.GF3910@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <561BE5FC.1020300@ezchip.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <561BE5FC.1020300@ezchip.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 12:55:24PM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> On 10/12/2015 12:53 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> 
> Is it worth starting to think about grouping things under the
> "task isolation" model somehow?  "task_isolation_cpus=1-31"
> or some such for this, and then that just sets up the nohz_full
> and isolcpus options under the hood?

Yeah if I could do it again, I would have rather created something like
cpu_isolation= (which name would conflict with isolcpus though) instead
of nohz_full=, because nohz_full= is really just a subset of what people
want.

But yeah if you guys want to create a new parameter that gathers nohz
and isolcpus I think we can.

task_isolation is really just about tasks so it should be another name.