Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757444AbbEVPUl (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 May 2015 11:20:41 -0400 Received: from mail-wg0-f47.google.com ([74.125.82.47]:34651 "EHLO mail-wg0-f47.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753148AbbEVPUh (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 May 2015 11:20:37 -0400 Message-ID: <1432308033.3390.15.camel@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] nohz: Set isolcpus when nohz_full is set From: Mike Galbraith To: Frederic Weisbecker Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" , Afzal Mohammed , Sasha Levin , Ingo Molnar , LKML , Chris Metcalf , "Rafael J . Wysocki" , Peter Zijlstra , Dave Jones , Thomas Gleixner , Oleg Nesterov , Ingo Molnar , Rik van Riel , Martin Schwidefsky Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 17:20:33 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20150522143952.GA24610@lerouge> References: <1430928266-24888-1-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com> <1430928266-24888-5-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com> <55579CE0.5060801@gmail.com> <1431840650.3222.78.camel@gmail.com> <20150520203809.GA2940@afzalpc> <20150520210026.GC6776@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20150521121246.GA4723@afzalpc> <20150521125759.GL6776@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20150521130621.GA14324@lerouge> <1432234778.3254.59.camel@gmail.com> <20150522143952.GA24610@lerouge> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.11 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1176 Lines: 24 On Fri, 2015-05-22 at 16:39 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 08:59:38PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > I think it's a mistake to make any rash assumption and/or mandate that > > the user WILL use nohz_full CPUs immediately, or even at all for that > > matter. nohz_full currently is nothing but a CPU attribute, period, > > nothing more, nothing less. > > That's what the nohz_full parameter is for. Now if you're referring to > change the nohz_full toggle to a runtime interface such as sysfs or such, > I don't see that's a pressing need, especially considering the added > complexity. At least I haven't heard much requests for it. I'm not advocating anything like that, I'm just standing on my soap box advocating NOT restricting user choices. Cpusets works fine for me, and I'd like them to keep on working. If I need to add any hooks, buttons, or rubber tubing I'll do it there ;-) -Mike -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/