On Mon, 2017-10-30 at 17:11 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 10:48:04AM -0500, Christopher Lameter wrote: > > On Fri, 27 Oct 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > > I _strongly_ object to this statement, isolcpus is _not_ the preferred > > > way, cpusets are. > > > > > > And yes, while cpusets suffers some problems, we _should_ really fix > > > those and not promote this piece of shit isolcpus crap. > > > > Well low level control at the processor level is important and this allows > > controlling activities on a processor that is supposed to be dedicated to > > certain activities without OS interaction. > > > > isolcpus is the *right* approach here because you are micromanaging the OS > > and are putting dedicated pieces of software on each core. > > That is what you want, and cpusets should allow for that just fine. > > > A cgroup suggests that threads would be scheduled over multiple cores > > which is *not* what you want. > > No, that suggestion is false. cpusets should allow you to isolate > individual CPUs just fine. It does. I do RT jitter testing with it regularly. If it didn't work, my 8 socket box would let me know instantly, by completely sucking :) -Mike -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tip-commits" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|