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: Max Krasnyanskiy <maxk@...>
Cc: Ingo Oeser <ioe-lkml@...>, Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@...>, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...>, Paul Jackson <pj@...>, <linux-kernel@...>, Con Kolivas <kernel@...>, Derek L. Fults <dfults@...>, devik <devik@...>, Dinakar Guniguntala <dino@...>, Emmanuel Pacaud <emmanuel.pacaud@...>, Frederik Deweerdt <deweerdt@...>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...>, Matthew Dobson <colpatch@...>, <rostedt@...>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...>, Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...>, Paul Menage <menage@...>, Randy.Dunlap <rddunlap@...>, <suresh.b.siddha@...>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...>
Date: Tuesday, June 3, 2008 - 9:18 pm

On Wednesday 04 June 2008 09:47, Max Krasnyanskiy wrote:

For your case, that's probably the best way to solve it, yes.



When you bring a CPU online, in theory the sched domains should get
set up for them, so you should start seeing processes get migrated
onto it, and with them timers work queues etc.

If you have irqbalanced running, it probably migrates irqs onto them
as well if it needs to.
--
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?..., Nick Piggin, (Tue Jun 3, 9:18 pm)