Hello,
On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 07:13:33PM +0300, Tal Shorer wrote:
> > Do we have a consistent behavior around this? Are there different
> > examples where isolcpus interact with other dynamically configurable
> > parameters?
> >
> sched_setaffinity comes to mind, which obviously bypasses isolcpu
On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 7:04 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 07:02:21PM +0300, Tal Shorer wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 6:49 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> > On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 12:44:06AM +0300, Tal Shorer wrote:
>> >> Initialize wq_unbound_cpumask to exclude cpus that were isola
On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 12:44:06AM +0300, Tal Shorer wrote:
> Initialize wq_unbound_cpumask to exclude cpus that were isolated by
> the cmdline's isolcpus parameter.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tal Shorer
> ---
> kernel/workqueue.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a
Initialize wq_unbound_cpumask to exclude cpus that were isolated by
the cmdline's isolcpus parameter.
Signed-off-by: Tal Shorer
---
kernel/workqueue.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
index ca937b0..25b351d 100644
--- a/k
4 matches
Mail list logo