Re: [RFC] why can't dynamic isolation just like the static way

[Steven Rostedt]

You forgot to include the cgroup maintainers.

-- Steve


On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 16:17:34 +0800
çè <yun.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hi, folks
> 
> We are dealing with isolcpus these days and try to do the isolation
> dynamically.
> 
> The kernel doc lead us into the cpuset.sched_load_balance, it's fine
> to achieve the dynamic isolation with it, however we got problem with
> the systemd stuff.
> 
> It's keeping create cgroup with sched_load_balance enabled on default,
> while the cpus are overlapped with the isolated ones, which lead into
> sched domain rebuild and these cpus become non-isolated.
> 
> We're just looking forward an easy way to dynamic isolate some cpus,
> just like the isolation parameter, but sched_load_balance forcing us
> to dealing with the management of cgroups, we really don't get the
> point in here...
> 
> Why do we have to mix the isolation with cgroups? Why not just provide
> a proc entry to read cpumask and rebuild the domains?
> 
> Please let us know if there is any good reason to make the dynamic
> isolation in that way, appreciated in advance :-)
> 
> Regards,
> Michael Wang