* Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> [2018-10-24 12:15:08]: > 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.
Agree, but thats something thats been exposed long time back. Do we have an option to remove that? Hopefully nobody is using it. -- Thanks and Regards Srikar Dronamraju
