Re: [PATCH] sched: Give cpusets exclusive control over scheddomains (ie remove cpu_isolated_map)

[Paul Jackson]

Max K wrote:
> Would you be ok with a patch that exposes (via sysctl
> for example) scheduler balancer mask when cpusets are disabled ?

I wasn't looking for a variant implementation.  Unless this variant
serves some critical purpose that isolcpus can't provide, I would be
against it.  I'm trying to minimize API changes to kernel users.

I am trying to discuss the reasons for or against removing isolcpus.

I just started a separate lkml thread, with a wider audience, to
address this question:

  Inquiry: Should we remove "isolcpus= kernel boot option? (may have realtime uses)

-- 
                  I won't rest till it's the best ...
                  Programmer, Linux Scalability
                  Paul Jackson <pj@xxxxxxx> 1.940.382.4214
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/