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;
Date:   Tue, 24 Mar 2020 08:38:29 -0300
From:   Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc:     Chris Friesen <chris.friesen@windriver.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
        Vu Tran <vu.tran@windriver.com>,
        Jim Somerville <Jim.Somerville@windriver.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] affine kernel threads to specified cpumask
Message-ID: <20200324113829.GA16502@fuller.cnet>
References: <20200323135414.GA28634@fuller.cnet>
 <87k13boxcn.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <af285c22-2a3f-5aa6-3fdb-27fba73389bd@windriver.com>
 <87imiuq0cg.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87imiuq0cg.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 09:31:59PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Chris,
> 
> Chris Friesen <chris.friesen@windriver.com> writes:
> > On 3/23/2020 10:22 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >> Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com> writes:
> >>> This allows CPU isolation (that is not allowing certain threads
> >>> to execute on certain CPUs) without using the isolcpus= parameter,
> >>> making it possible to enable load balancing on such CPUs
> >>> during runtime.
> >> 
> >> I'm surely missing some background information, but that sentence does
> >> not make any sense to me.
> >
> > The idea is to affine general kernel threads to specific "housekeeping" 
> > CPUs, while still allowing load balancing of tasks.
> >
> > The isolcpus= boot parameter would prevent kernel threads from running 
> > on the isolated CPUs, but it disables load balancing on the isolated CPUs.
> 
> So why can't we just have a isolcpus mode which allows that instead of
> adding more command line options which are slightly different?
> 
> We just added some magic for managed interrupts to isolcpus, which is
> surely interesting for your scenario as well...
> 
> Thanks,
> 
>         tglx

Hi Thomas, Chris,

Works for me, will adjust and resend.