On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 06:58:18PM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Tue, 2018-01-16 at 16:41 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 02:18:13PM -0500, Luiz Capitulino wrote: > > > > > Why are extending isolcpus= given that it's a deprecated interface? > > > Some people have already moved away from isolcpus= now, but with this > > > new feature they will be forced back to using it. > > > > I tried to remove isolcpus or at least change the way it works so that its > > effects are reversible (ie: affine the init task instead of isolating > > domains) > > but that got nacked due to the behaviour's expectations for userspace. > > So we paint ourselves into a static corner forever more, despite every > bit of this being all about "properties of sets of cpus", ie precisely > what cpusets was born to do. That's sad, dynamic wasn't that far away.
Hence why we need to propagate "isolcpus=" to cpusets.
