From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752606AbdJ0Ogi (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Oct 2017 10:36:38 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:53572 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751516AbdJ0Ogf (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Oct 2017 10:36:35 -0400 DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org BCFDF21942 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=frederic@kernel.org X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+TUEi/9QyRSP3SZq0jRJOaDuwewO9p6WFDL7W0/RAEDqPWKrynxfHYSP+pz89UCmCRZTgrKVDr8jrssaWi5+PE= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20171027135831.GZ3165@worktop.lehotels.local> References: <1509072159-31808-13-git-send-email-frederic@kernel.org> <20171027135831.GZ3165@worktop.lehotels.local> From: Frederic Weisbecker Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 16:36:33 +0200 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: [tip:sched/core] sched/isolation: Document the isolcpus= flags To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: cmetcalf@mellanox.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, hpa@zytor.com, riel@redhat.com, cl@linux.com, mingo@kernel.org, efault@gmx.de, kernellwp@gmail.com, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, lcapitulino@redhat.com, linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 2017-10-27 15:58 UTC+02:00, Peter Zijlstra : > On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 05:06:25AM -0700, tip-bot for Frederic Weisbecker > wrote: >> + isolcpus= [KNL,SMP] Isolate a given set of CPUs from disturbance. >> + Format: [flag-list,] >> + >> + Specify one or more CPUs to isolate from disturbances >> + specified in the flag list (default: domain): >> + >> + nohz >> + Disable the tick when a single task runs. >> + domain >> + Isolate from the general SMP balancing and scheduling >> + algorithms. This option is the preferred way to isolate >> + CPUs from tasks. > > I _strongly_ object to this statement, isolcpus is _not_ the preferred > way, cpusets are. > > And yes, while cpusets suffers some problems, we _should_ really fix > those and not promote this piece of shit isolcpus crap. I definitely agree with that so your position is a relief :-) This patch only indented the existing parameter documentation so fixing its content was beyond its scope. I'll send a patch to correct the text. Thanks.