From: 王贇 <yun.wang@linux.alibaba.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
"open list:SCHEDULER" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: [RFC] why can't dynamic isolation just like the static way
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 16:17:34 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <fed10a26-7423-23b5-316c-c74d354870dd@linux.alibaba.com> (raw)
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
next reply other threads:[~2020-02-11 8:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-02-11 8:17 王贇 [this message]
2020-02-11 11:43 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-02-11 14:00 ` Steven Rostedt
2020-02-12 1:35 ` 王贇
2020-02-12 1:30 ` 王贇
2020-02-11 13:54 ` Steven Rostedt
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=fed10a26-7423-23b5-316c-c74d354870dd@linux.alibaba.com \
--to=yun.wang@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®