On Fri, 27 Oct 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > 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.
Well low level control at the processor level is important and this allows controlling activities on a processor that is supposed to be dedicated to certain activities without OS interaction. isolcpus is the *right* approach here because you are micromanaging the OS and are putting dedicated pieces of software on each core. A cgroup suggests that threads would be scheduled over multiple cores which is *not* what you want. cgroup has to do something with containers etc which is inherently more noisy and needed if you want to do different things with your processing resources.
