From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934767AbdDFNoT (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Apr 2017 09:44:19 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:41783 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933118AbdDFNoK (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Apr 2017 09:44:10 -0400 Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 15:44:07 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Srikar Dronamraju , Ingo Molnar , LKML , Mel Gorman , Rik van Riel Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Fix numabalancing to work with isolated cpus Message-ID: <20170406134405.GN5497@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <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> <20170406102957.xz53avexxyiim4az@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20170406104204.GI5497@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20170406104757.kemq6is6nh6f26fx@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170406104757.kemq6is6nh6f26fx@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu 06-04-17 12:47:57, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 12:42:04PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > Is this something dictated by usecases which rely on isolcpus or rather > > nobody bothered to implement one scheduling domain? > > Its from the original use-case I suspect. It was done very much on > purpose. OK, fair enough. > If you want bigger partitions use cpusets. Or rather, like I've been > saying for many years, use cpusets for everything and kill isolcpus. I thought that the only point of isolcpus is to provide an exclusive set of cpus that only selected userspace will ever run. Mostly to schield it of from the random system activity. But maybe this is just my misinterpretation of what this feature offers. Anway I am shifting this off-topic so I will not interfere more. Thanks for the clarification. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs