Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 24 Jan 2014 14:23:13 +0530 | Subject | Re: [QUERY]: Is using CPU hotplug right for isolating CPUs? | From | Viresh Kumar <> |
| |
On 23 January 2014 19:31, Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> wrote: > Ok, so it is fine to migrate the latter kind I guess?
Unless somebody has abused the API and used bound workqueues where he should have used unbound ones.
> I haven't checked the details but then this quiesce option would involve > a dependency on cpuset for any workload involving workqueues affinity. I'm > not sure we really want this. Besides, workqueues have an existing sysfs interface > that can be easily extended. > > Now indeed we may also want to enforce some policy to make sure that further > created and queued workqueues are affine to a specific subset of CPUs. And then > cpuset sounds like a good idea :)
Exactly. Cpuset would be more useful here. Probably we can keep both cpusets and sysfs interface of workqueues..
I will try to add this option under cpuset which will initially move timers and workqueues away from the cpuset in question.
| |