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 S932215AbdJWMGh (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Mon, 23 Oct 2017 08:06:37 -0400
Received: from mail-wr0-f195.google.com ([209.85.128.195]:44988 "EHLO
        mail-wr0-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751116AbdJWMGf (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 23 Oct 2017 08:06:35 -0400
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+SamF1Q4GSYc7qQB/Sm9Q4wUgpIdWmjnHEXgzqVGqyD0i8BWmHRdhE+xOIlz4V+oDCXNAIbnQ==
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 14:06:31 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@mellanox.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
        "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Introduce housekeeping subsystem v4
Message-ID: <20171023120631.dkpymlvfavh4zmpn@gmail.com>
References: <1505742849-30473-1-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com>
 <20170928095425.2kcaehmnrukdkzfy@gmail.com>
 <1614fd90-f334-ed4b-3698-e799f29e4e35@gmail.com>
 <20171020081738.cb6ycok7a3bmtafr@gmail.com>
 <CAFTL4hxPPHqjF-P6e+SZiktHcKjCq0kVhKnMgK=gHnzFigkzbQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAFTL4hxPPHqjF-P6e+SZiktHcKjCq0kVhKnMgK=gHnzFigkzbQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170609 (1.8.3)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


* Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org> wrote:

> In fact, CPU affinity is the only high level concept I found to gather all these 
> housekeeping elements.
> 
> Perhaps I should use "cpu_isolation" instead of "housekeeping" naming.

The problem with names based on that, like cpu_isolation_map, is that there's 
really two concepts here: there's the isolcpus feature where the 'mask' is in fact 
the CPUs that are isolated - while the 'housekeeping CPUs' is the mask of CPUs 
that _support_ the isolated set of CPUs. The two are different roles but easily 
confused if named similarly.

So I guess 'housekeeping CPUs' is as good as it gets for now.

Mind sending a refreshed queue against the latest kernel? There's some new 
conflicts in kernel/watchdog.c for example.

Thanks,

	Ingo