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: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...>
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 - 11:00 pm

Nick Piggin wrote:
 >> Dimitri, you can probably use that too. ie Boot the thing with most CPUs

Sure. My suggestion assumes that system wide balancing is disabled (via top
level cpuset) and that IRQ affinity masks are properly setup. I mentioned that
in my earlier emails.

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, (Tue Jun 3, 11:00 pm)