Re: Question Regarding isolcpus

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 





On 10/12/23 15:10, Waiman Long wrote:
On 10/12/23 13:27, Joseph Salisbury wrote:


On 9/28/23 04:39, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
On 2023-09-26 12:45:14 [-0400], Joseph Salisbury wrote:
Hi All,
Hi,

I have a question regarding the isolcpus parameter.  I've been seeing this
parameter commonly used. However, in the kernel.org documentation[0],
isolcpus is listed as depreciated.

Is it the case that isolcpus should not be used at all? I've seen it used in conjunction with taskset.  However, should we now be telling rt users to
use only cpusets in cgroups?  I see that CPUAffinity can be set in
/etc/systemd/system.conf.  Is that the preferred method, so the process scheduler will automatically migrate processes between the cpusets in the
cgroup cpuset or the list set by CPUAffinity?
Frederic might know if there is an actual timeline to remove it. The
suggestions since then is to use cpusets which should be more flexible.
There was also some work (which went into v6.1 I think) to be able to
reconfigure the partitions at run-time while isolcpus= is a boot time
option.
 From what I remember, you have a default/system cpuset which all tasks
use by default and then you can add another cpuset for the "isolated"
CPUs. Based on the partition it can be either the default one or
isolated [0]. The latter would exclude the CPUs from load balancing
which is what isolcpus= does.

[0] f28e22441f353 ("cgroup/cpuset: Add a new isolated cpus.partition type")

This question may be for the cgroups folks.  The kernel.org documentation has a WARNING which states: "cgroup2 doesn't yet support control of realtime processes and the cpu controller can only be enabled when all RT processes are in the root cgroup "[0]. Does this mean real-time processes are only supported on cgroupsV1?

Also, this warning is stated for the "CPU" Controller, but there is no mention of this for a "cpuset" controller. Does this imply that real-time processes are supported with "cpuset" controllers?

Yes, the quoted description applies only to cpu controller. Even for v1 cpu controller, the realtime support is problematic and there is no easy solution to that. That is why cgroup v2 doesn't support it.

For other controllers, whether the processes are RT or not are irrelevant. They are equally supported.

Cheers,
Longman
Thanks for the feedback, Longman!







[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]     [Monitors]

  Powered by Linux