Re: [PATCH] nohz: Revert "nohz: Set isolcpus when nohz_full is set"

From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
To: Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@ezchip.com>
Cc: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com>,
	Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>, Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] nohz: Revert "nohz: Set isolcpus when nohz_full is set"
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 19:42:41 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151012174238.GA1113@lerouge> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <561BE5FC.1020300@ezchip.com>

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 12:55:24PM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> On 10/12/2015 12:53 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> 
> Is it worth starting to think about grouping things under the
> "task isolation" model somehow?  "task_isolation_cpus=1-31"
> or some such for this, and then that just sets up the nohz_full
> and isolcpus options under the hood?

Yeah if I could do it again, I would have rather created something like
cpu_isolation= (which name would conflict with isolcpus though) instead
of nohz_full=, because nohz_full= is really just a subset of what people
want.

But yeah if you guys want to create a new parameter that gathers nohz
and isolcpus I think we can.

task_isolation is really just about tasks so it should be another name.