Peter Zijlstra wrote:

quoted text
> cpu isolation doesn't offer anything over cpusets, hence remove it.

Works for me. That's what I suggested in my reply to your comments.
Here is the quote from the previous thread:

quoted text
>>>> This also allows for isolated groups, there are good reasons to isolate groups,
>>>> esp. now that we have a stronger RT balancer. SMP and hard RT are not
>>>> exclusive. A design that does not take that into account is too rigid.
>> 
>>> You're thinking scheduling only. Paul had the same confusion ;-)
>> 
>> I'm not, I'm thinking it ought to allow for it.
> One way I can think of how to support groups and allow for RT balancer is 
> this: Make scheduler ignore cpu_isolated_map and give cpusets full control of 
> the scheduler domains. Use cpu_isolated_map to only for hw irq and other 
> kernel sub-systems. That way cpusets could mark cpus in the group as isolated 
> to get rid of the  kernel activity and build sched domain such that tasks get 
> balanced in it.
> The thing I do not like about it is that there is no way to boot the system 
> with CPU N isolated from the beginning. Also dynamic isolation currently 
> relies on the cpu hotplug to clear pending irqs, softirqs, kernel timers and 
> threads. So cpusets would have to simulate the cpu hotplug event I guess.

Max

--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/