From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1755210AbbCBQDF (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 2 Mar 2015 11:03:05 -0500
Received: from mail-we0-f178.google.com ([74.125.82.178]:42010 "EHLO
	mail-we0-f178.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1755179AbbCBQDB (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 2 Mar 2015 11:03:01 -0500
Message-ID: <1425312177.12094.15.camel@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] cpusets,isolcpus: add file to show isolated cpus
 in cpuset
From: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
        Zefan Li <lizefan@huawei.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Clark Williams <williams@redhat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>, cgroups@vger.kernel.org
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 17:02:57 +0100
In-Reply-To: <20150302152924.GD17694@htj.duckdns.org>
References: <1424882288-2910-1-git-send-email-riel@redhat.com>
	 <1424882288-2910-3-git-send-email-riel@redhat.com>
	 <54EEFE15.3010005@huawei.com>
	 <20150226121231.6fcba7e8@annuminas.surriel.com>
	 <20150302090933.GH21418@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
	 <1425300290.5863.17.camel@gmail.com>
	 <20150302152924.GD17694@htj.duckdns.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.11 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, 2015-03-02 at 10:29 -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 02, 2015 at 01:44:50PM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > Hm, I'm now all system-disease-ified now (still hate the bloody thing),
> > and have no problem isolating cpus via cpusets, modulo workqueues
> > wanting a bat upside the head.
> 
> It shouldn't be difficult to teach workqueue pools to follow the same
> rules.  This matters only for the unbound ones anyway, right?

Well, those are the only ones we can do anything about.  Dirt simple
diddling of the workqueue default mask as sched domains are
added/removed should do it I think.  Automatically moving any existing
unbound worker away from isolated cores at the same time would be a
bonus, most important is that no new threads sneak in.

	-Mike