On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 03:16:46PM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote: > * Mel Gorman <mgor...@techsingularity.net> [2018-10-24 09:56:36]: > > > On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 08:32:49AM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote: > > It would certainly be a bit odd because the > > application is asking for some protection but no guarantees are given > > and the application is not made aware via an error code that there is a > > problem. Asking the application to parse dmesg hoping to find the right > > error message is going to be fragile. > > Its a actually a good question. > What should we be doing if a mix of isolcpus and housekeeping (aka > non-isolcpus) is given in the mask. > > Right now as you pointed, there is no easy way for the application to know > which are the non-isolcpus to set its affinity. cpusets effective_cpus and > cpus_allowed both will contain isolcpus too.
The easy option is to not use isolcpus :-) It is a horrifically bad interface.
