From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932160AbdJUQPi (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Oct 2017 12:15:38 -0400 Received: from mail-qk0-f194.google.com ([209.85.220.194]:53821 "EHLO mail-qk0-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932090AbdJUQPg (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Oct 2017 12:15:36 -0400 X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+S1u32uFWbgS8DT2jpognmRevoU/1mKf/cvb+KxTiImoRa5t7VL/sFBLfBoh1TWrw5ojjg4ZA== Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2017 09:15:33 -0700 From: Tejun Heo To: Tal Shorer Cc: jiangshanlai@gmail.com, "" Subject: Re: [PATCH] workqueue: respect isolated cpus when queueing an unbound work Message-ID: <20171021161533.GQ1302522@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com> References: <1508449446-23693-1-git-send-email-tal.shorer@gmail.com> <20171021154946.GL1302522@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com> <20171021160446.GO1302522@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com> 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 Hello, On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 07:13:33PM +0300, Tal Shorer wrote: > > Do we have a consistent behavior around this? Are there different > > examples where isolcpus interact with other dynamically configurable > > parameters? > > > sched_setaffinity comes to mind, which obviously bypasses isolcpus. > Running git grep, other uses of cpu_isolated_map are just its > initialization and its use and the initialization of > non_isolated_cpus. Can you add a comment explaining that it's intentional that we only follow isolcpus during boot and allow later overrides? Thanks. -- tejun