On 2015/3/19 9:54, Rik van Riel wrote: > 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. > Other patches look good to me. > (taking tomorrow off to go hiking on the last full day of winter) > Have a good day! -- 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
