On Mon, 28 Aug 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > 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. > > Those people cannot read. And no its not a bug fix. Its documented and > intended behaviour.
Well the next step was to create a cgroup with those processors and suddenly load balancing worked again. This is all pretty confusing stuff. I would rather get rid of isolcpus and rely on the process affinities set to a single processor, and the removal of the this processor from all other processes as a sufficient. I think this already does the right thing. What is mentioned in the isolcpus documentation is a worry about "suboptimal scheduler performance". Could we address that issue (if it is still there) and then get rid of isolcpus?
