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 S934382AbdDFKaO (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Thu, 6 Apr 2017 06:30:14 -0400
Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:36950 "EHLO
        merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S933499AbdDFKaF (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 6 Apr 2017 06:30:05 -0400
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 12:29:57 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Fix numabalancing to work with isolated cpus
Message-ID: <20170406102957.xz53avexxyiim4az@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <1491326848-5748-1-git-send-email-srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20170405125743.GB7258@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20170405152215.GA6019@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20170405164437.GT6035@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20170406071950.GA5843@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20170406073436.GD5497@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20170406092329.52zzkxlkvitnh44c@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20170406101348.GH5497@dhcp22.suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170406101348.GH5497@dhcp22.suse.cz>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 12:13:49PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 06-04-17 11:23:29, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 09:34:36AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [...]
> > > I would really like to see it confirmed by the scheduler maintainers and
> > > documented properly as well. What you are claiming here is rather
> > > surprising to my understanding of what isolcpus acutally is.
> > 
> > isolcpus gets you a set of fully partitioned CPUs. What's surprising
> > about that?
> 
> Well, I thought that all isolated cpus simply form their own scheduling
> domain which is isolated from the general workload on the system
> (kthreads, softirqs etc...).

No, they all form their own 1 cpu partition.