On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 09:55:51AM -0500, Christopher Lameter wrote: > On Wed, 23 Aug 2017, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > > While at it, this is a proposition for a reimplementation of isolcpus= > > that doesn't involve scheduler domain isolation. Therefore this > > brings a behaviour change: all user tasks inherit init/1 affinity which > > avoid the isolcpus= range. But if a task later overrides its affinity > > which turns out to intersect an isolated CPU, load balancing may occur > > on it. > > I think that change is good maybe even a bugfix. I had some people be very > surprised when they set affinities to multiple cpus and the processeds > kept sticking to one cpu because of isolcpus.
That's good to hear! I'll keep that direction then, unless someone complains.
