On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 03:51:11AM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > We want to centralize the isolation features on the housekeeping > subsystem and scheduler isolation is a significant part of it. > > 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. > > OTOH such a reimplementation that doesn't shortcut scheduler internals > makes a better candidate for an interface extension to cpuset.
Not sure we can do this. It'll break users that rely on the no scheduling thing, that's a well documented part of isolcpus.
