Re: Inquiry: Should we remove "isolcpus= kernel boot option? (may have realtime uses)

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Paul Jackson <pj@...>
Cc: <linux-kernel@...>, Con Kolivas <kernel@...>, Derek L. Fults <dfults@...>, devik <devik@...>, Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@...>, Dinakar Guniguntala <dino@...>, Emmanuel Pacaud <emmanuel.pacaud@...>, Frederik Deweerdt <deweerdt@...>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...>, Matthew Dobson <colpatch@...>, Max Krasnyansky <maxk@...>, Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...>, <rostedt@...>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...>, Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...>, Paul Menage <menage@...>, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...>, Randy.Dunlap <rddunlap@...>, <suresh.b.siddha@...>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...>
Date: Monday, June 2, 2008 - 6:35 pm

Hi Paul,

in short: NAK!

On Monday 02 June 2008, Paul Jackson wrote:

I used it to mask out a defect CPU on a 8-CPU node of a 
HPC-cluster at a customer site, until the $BIG_VENDOR 
sent a replacement. And to prove $BIG_VENDOR, that we actually
have a problem on THAT CPU.

So I would really like to keep this fault isolation capability.
I made my customer happy with that.

I wish Linux had more such "mask out bad hardware" features
to faciliate fault isolation and boot and runtime.


Best Regards

Ingo Oeser
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: Inquiry: Should we remove "isolcpus= kernel boot option?..., Ingo Oeser, (Mon Jun 2, 6:35 pm)
Re: Inquiry: Should we remove "isolcpus= kernel boot option?..., Michael Trimarchi, (Thu Jun 5, 10:57 am)