lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Jan]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [QUERY]: Is using CPU hotplug right for isolating CPUs?
From
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.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-01-24 10:21    [W:0.074 / U:0.452 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site