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

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Tue, 2008-06-03 at 00:35 +0200, Ingo Oeser wrote:
> Hi Paul,
> 
> in short: NAK!
> 
> On Monday 02 June 2008, Paul Jackson wrote:
> > (Aside to the RealTime folks -- is there a 'realtime'
> > email list which I should include in this discussion?)
> > 
> > The kernel has a "isolcpus=" kernel boot time parameter.  This
> > parameter isolates CPUs from scheduler load balancing, minimizing the
> > impact of scheduler latencies on realtime tasks running on those CPUs.
> 
> I used it to mask out a defect CPU on a 8-CPU node of a 
> HPC-cluster at a customer site, until the $BIG_VENDOR 
> sent a replacement. And to prove $BIG_VENDOR, that we actually
> have a problem on THAT CPU.
> 
> So I would really like to keep this fault isolation capability.
> I made my customer happy with that.
> 
> I wish Linux had more such "mask out bad hardware" features
> to faciliate fault isolation and boot and runtime.

Yeah - except that its not meant to be used as such - it will still
brings the cpu up, and it is still usable for the OS.

So sorry, your abuse doesn't make for a case to keep this abomination.

--
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/