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 Kleen <andi@...>, <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 - 4:03 pm

> We (SGI) routinely handle that need with a custom init program,

There are no additional changes needed, but you must admit that isolcpus
is a much more elegant solutation for this problem than hijacking init.

-Andi
--
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?..., Andi Kleen, (Wed Jun 4, 4:03 pm)