lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jan]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [CPUISOL] CPU isolation extensions
From
Date
[ You really ought to CC people :-) ]

On Sun, 2008-01-27 at 20:09 -0800, maxk@qualcomm.com wrote:
> Following patch series extends CPU isolation support. Yes, most people want to virtuallize
> CPUs these days and I want to isolate them :).
> The primary idea here is to be able to use some CPU cores as dedicated engines for running
> user-space code with minimal kernel overhead/intervention, think of it as an SPE in the
> Cell processor.
>
> We've had scheduler support for CPU isolation ever since O(1) scheduler went it.
> I'd like to extend it further to avoid kernel activity on those CPUs as much as possible.
> In fact that the primary distinction that I'm making between say "CPU sets" and
> "CPU isolation". "CPU sets" let you manage user-space load while "CPU isolation" provides
> a way to isolate a CPU as much as possible (including kernel activities).

Ok, so you're aware of CPU sets, miss a feature, but instead of
extending it to cover your needs you build something new entirely?

> I'm personally using this for hard realtime purposes. With CPU isolation it's very easy to
> achieve single digit usec worst case and around 200 nsec average response times on off-the-shelf
> multi- processor/core systems under exteme system load. I'm working with legal folks on releasing
> hard RT user-space framework for that.
> I can also see other application like simulators and stuff that can benefit from this.

have you been using just this, or in combination with the -rt effort?




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-01-28 10:15    [W:0.094 / U:0.588 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site