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: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...>
Cc: Ingo Oeser <ioe-lkml@...>, Paul Jackson <pj@...>, <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@...>, Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...>, <rostedt@...>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...>, Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...>, Paul Menage <menage@...>, Randy.Dunlap <rddunlap@...>, <suresh.b.siddha@...>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...>
Date: Monday, June 2, 2008 - 7:04 pm

Peter Zijlstra wrote:

Ingo, I just wanted to elaborate on what Peter is saying. That CPU will still
have to be _booted_ properly. It may be used for hard- and soft- interrupt
processing, workqueues (internal kernel queuing mechanism) and kernel timers.

In your particular case you're much much much better off with doing
	echo 0 > /sys/devices/system/cpuN/online
either during initrd stage or as a first init script.
That way bad cpu will be _completely_ disabled.

Max
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: Inquiry: Should we remove "isolcpus= kernel boot option?..., Michael Trimarchi, (Thu Jun 5, 10:57 am)
Re: Inquiry: Should we remove "isolcpus= kernel boot option?..., Max Krasnyansky, (Mon Jun 2, 7:04 pm)