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: Andi Kleen <andi@...>
Cc: <maxk@...>, <ioe-lkml@...>, <sivanich@...>, <a.p.zijlstra@...>, <linux-kernel@...>, <kernel@...>, <dfults@...>, <devik@...>, <dino@...>, <emmanuel.pacaud@...>, <deweerdt@...>, <mingo@...>, <colpatch@...>, <nickpiggin@...>, <rostedt@...>, <oleg@...>, <paulmck@...>, <menage@...>, <rddunlap@...>, <suresh.b.siddha@...>, <tglx@...>
Date: Wednesday, June 4, 2008 - 1:41 pm

Andi wrote:

We (SGI) routinely handle that need with a custom init program,
invoked with the init= parameter to the booting kernel, which
sets up cpusets and then invokes the normal (real) init program
in a cpuset configured to exclude those CPUs and nodes which we
want to remain unloaded.  For example, on a 256 CPU, 64 node
system, we might have init running on a single node of 4 CPUs,
and leave the remaining 63 nodes and 252 CPUs isolated from all
the usual user level daemons started by init.

There is no need for additional kernel changes to accomplish this.

-- 
                  I won't rest till it's the best ...
                  Programmer, Linux Scalability
                  Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> 1.940.382.4214
--
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?..., Paul Jackson, (Wed Jun 4, 1:41 pm)