Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 12:10:22 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Christopher Lameter <cl@linux.com>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@mellanox.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com>,
        "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 12/12] housekeeping: Reimplement isolcpus on
 housekeeping
Message-ID: <20170828101022.t26ikxslcf2c5bcl@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <1503453071-952-1-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com>
 <1503453071-952-13-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.20.1708230954240.23600@nuc-kabylake>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1708230954240.23600@nuc-kabylake>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170609 (1.8.3)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 795
Lines: 16

On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 09:55:51AM -0500, Christopher Lameter wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2017, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> 
> > While at it, this is a proposition for a reimplementation of isolcpus=
> > that doesn't involve  scheduler domain isolation. Therefore this
> > brings a behaviour change: all user tasks inherit init/1 affinity which
> > avoid the isolcpus= range. But if a task later overrides its affinity
> > which turns out to intersect an isolated CPU, load balancing may occur
> > on it.
> 
> I think that change is good maybe even a bugfix. I had some people be very
> surprised when they set affinities to multiple cpus and the processeds
> kept sticking to one cpu because of isolcpus.

Those people cannot read. And no its not a bug fix. Its documented and
intended behaviour.