On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 10:36:41AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Sat, 2014-05-17 at 22:20 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > If you are saying that turning on nohz_full doesn't help unless you > > also ensure that there is only one runnable task per CPU, I completely > > agree. If you are saying something else, you lost me. ;-) > > Yup, that's it more or less. It's not only single task loads that could > benefit from better isolation, but if isolation improving measures are > tied to nohz_full, other sensitive loads will suffer if they try to use > isolation improvements. So you are arguing for a separate Kconfig variable that does the isolation? So that NO_HZ_FULL selects this new variable, and (for example) RCU uses this new variable to decide when to pin the grace-period kthreads onto the housekeeping CPU? Thanx, Paul -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
