Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [RFC] why can't dynamic isolation just like the static way
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
        "open list:SCHEDULER" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <fed10a26-7423-23b5-316c-c74d354870dd@linux.alibaba.com>
 <20200211114350.GJ14914@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
From:   =?UTF-8?B?546L6LSH?= <yun.wang@linux.alibaba.com>
Message-ID: <4800c9fd-2fbd-df35-cfa9-c048f9fe8b11@linux.alibaba.com>
Date:   Wed, 12 Feb 2020 09:30:03 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:68.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.4.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200211114350.GJ14914@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


On 2020/2/11 下午7:43, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 04:17:34PM +0800, 王贇 wrote:
>> Hi, folks
>>
>> We are dealing with isolcpus these days and try to do the isolation
>> dynamically.
>>
>> The kernel doc lead us into the cpuset.sched_load_balance, it's fine
>> to achieve the dynamic isolation with it, however we got problem with
>> the systemd stuff.
> 
> Then don't use systemd :-) Also, if systemd is the problem, why are you
> bugging us?

Well, that's... fair enough :-P

What we try to understand is why dynamic isolation is so different with
the way of static isolation, is it not good to have a simple way instead?

Regards,
Michael Wang

>