On Sat, 2015-10-03 at 14:31 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 03, 2015 at 02:04:44PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Sat, 2015-10-03 at 10:52 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > Ok, looks like a patch with good intentions but bad effects. Mind sending
> > > a revert
> > > patch, changelogged, signed off?
> >
> > No. They know.
>
> The reason for this patch is that NO_HZ_FULL is only useful on a CPU if no
> task
> other than the desired one can be scheduled on it. Hence the cpu_isolated_map.
Yes, but makes it needlessly static.
> Only those who enable NO_HZ_FULL_ALL by accident do complain, not those who
> really use it so far. At least it makes people realize their mistake.
>
> That said I never liked that cpu_isolated_map. And some regular non-isolation
> work may be needed to be done even on NO_HZ_FULL_ALL machines and it that
> case we get screwed.
ATM, using nohz_full CPUs for generic work has a high price, but those
CPUs work just fine. Andy is allegedly gonna make that overhead go
away, at which time dynamic sets become a much more attractive, but you
can do that now.
> So I should revert that and defer that isolation work to explicit affinity
> setting or cpusets.
Yay.
-Mike
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
