Re: [PATCH 0/6] support "dataplane" mode for nohz_full

[Chris Metcalf]

On 05/11/2015 03:19 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> I really shouldn't have acked nohz_full -> isolcpus.  Beside the fact
> that old static isolcpus was_supposed_  to crawl off and die, I know
> beyond doubt that having isolated a cpu as well as you can definitely
> does NOT imply that said cpu should become tickless.

True, at a high level, I agree that it would be better to have a
top-level concept like Frederic's proposed ISOLATION that includes
isolcpus and nohz_cpu (and other stuff as needed).

That said, what you wrote above is wrong; even with the patch you
acked, setting isolcpus does not automatically turn on nohz_full for
a given cpu.  The patch made it true the other way around: when
you say nohz_full, you automatically get isolcpus on that cpu too.
That does, at least, make sense for the semantics of nohz_full.

--
Chris Metcalf, EZChip Semiconductor
http://www.ezchip.com

--
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/