On 03/09/2018 05:17 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 03:43:34PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote: >> The isolcpus= parameter just reduce the cpus available to the rests of >> the system. The cpuset controller does look at that value and make >> adjustment accordingly, but it has no dependence on exclusive cpu/mem >> features of cpuset. > The isolcpus= boot param is donkey shit and needs to die. cpuset _used_ > to be able to fully replace it, but with the advent of cgroup 'feature' > this got lost. > > And instead of fixing it, you're making it _far_ worse. You completely > removed all the bits that allow repartitioning the scheduler domains. > > Mike is completely right, full NAK on any such approach. So you are talking about sched_relax_domain_level and sched_load_balance. I have not removed any bits. I just haven't exposed them yet. It does seem like these 2 control knobs are useful from the scheduling perspective. Do we also need cpu_exclusive or just the two sched control knobs are enough? Cheers, Longman -- 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
