There's a number of kernel tasks that are implicitly bound to cpu0. For an example of one have a look at rcu offloading and its restrictions.
On Mon, 22 May 2017, 08:59 Himanshu Sharma, <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Michael > > Did you find a satisfactory reason for not isolating cpu 0, maybe some low > level OS code that is bound to run on core 0? I am also stuck at this > question right now and am thinking you might have an answer. > > Thanks > Himanshu > > On Wednesday, March 4, 2015 at 8:08:22 PM UTC+5:30, Michael Mattoss wrote: >> >> Hi guys, >> >> I'm in the process of setting up a new dual-socket server for a low >> latency workload. >> The application will run exclusively on one CPU and everything else (i.e. >> OS, non-critical processes) will run on the other CPU to avoid cache >> pollution. >> I was wondering if it makes any difference as to which one of the >> 2 CPU's is chosen for the workload. >> Theoretically, there should be no difference but I was wondering if >> there is some low-level stuff (e.g. core OS code, system management >> interrupts handlers) that is statically allocated to CPU-0 as every system >> has at least 1 CPU. >> Of course, if that's the case then CPU-1 is the better choice. >> >> Any thoughts/suggestions? >> >> Thanks, >> Michael >> > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "mechanical-sympathy" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "mechanical-sympathy" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
