Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755035Ab2F0NWM (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Jun 2012 09:22:12 -0400 Received: from mail-bk0-f46.google.com ([209.85.214.46]:49601 "EHLO mail-bk0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752727Ab2F0NWK (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Jun 2012 09:22:10 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 21:22:09 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: CPU isolation question again From: Luming Yu To: LKML Cc: Frederic Weisbecker Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 965 Lines: 20 Hi there, I noticed some discussion about CPU isolation which points me to the patch set (https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/8/15/245). I'm currently preparing a RFC-patch-set to automatically pick up a few suitable CPUs to isolate then kick them out of service for a while. We need to balance between thermal & power management And overall system performance during this operation as much as possible. So software-cpu-online-offline interface could not be a good option to me. But to make sure I'm not blindly running on a dead-end path, I'd check with experts here to ensure it makes some sense to isolate CPUs to this level, and the idea also makes some sense, and the most important is it's not implemented yet. Thanks!! -- 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/