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: <andi@...>, <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 - 3:31 pm

Paul Jackson wrote:

Ah, I missed the memory placement part. As far cpu placement goes the result
would be equivalent but not for memory.

btw Are you guys using some kind of castrated, statically linked shell to run
that script ? Otherwise regular shell and friends will suck in the same glibc
 pages as the regular init would.

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, (Wed Jun 4, 3:31 pm)