On 03/18/2015 09:50 PM, Zefan Li wrote: > On 2015/3/19 7:40, Rik van Riel wrote: >> On 03/18/2015 12:47 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: >>> On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 12:12:09PM -0400, riel@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: >>>> From: Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>> >>>> The previous patch makes it so the code skips over isolcpus when >>>> building scheduler load balancing domains. This makes it hard to >>>> see for a user which of the CPUs in a cpuset are participating in >>>> load balancing, and which ones are isolated cpus. >>>> >>>> Add a cpuset.isolcpus file with info on which cpus in a cpuset are >>>> isolated CPUs. >>>> >>>> This file is read-only for now. In the future we could extend things >>>> so isolcpus can be changed at run time, for the root (system wide) >>>> cpuset only. >>> >>> Didn't Li say that this is trivially computable from userland? I'm >>> not sure this knob actually belongs to cpuset. >> >> I don't know whether the information to compute this is >> always visible from userland. I am happy to drop this >> patch if Li prefers things that way, though. >> > > What I proposed is adding /sys/devices/system/cpu/isolated. Sysfs is > visible in containers, unless specially configured not so. OK, are you willing to take patches 1, 2, and the first hunk of patch 4 now? I can submit a patch to add /sys/devices/system/cpu/isolated on Friday, to the appropriate maintainer. (taking tomorrow off to go hiking on the last full day of winter) -- All rights reversed -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cgroups" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
