On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 09:53:28AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
Ming,Indeed.
On Mon, 25 Mar 2019, Ming Lei wrote:
On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 01:02:13PM +0800, Peter Xu wrote:isolcpus has no effect on the interupts. That's what 'irqaffinity=' is for.
One thing I can think of is the real-time scenario where "isolcpus="So far, this behaviour is made by user-space.
is provided, then logically we should not allow any isolated CPUs to
be bound to any of the multi-queue IRQs. Though Ming Lei and I had a
>From my understanding, IRQ subsystem doesn't handle "isolcpus=", even
though the Kconfig help doesn't mention irq affinity affect:
Make sure that CPUs running critical tasks are not disturbed by
any source of "noise" such as unbound workqueues, timers, kthreads...
Unbound jobs get offloaded to housekeeping CPUs. This is driven by
the "isolcpus=" boot parameter.
irq_default_affinity is built from 'irqaffinity=', however, we don't
consider irq_default_affinity for managed IRQ affinity.
Looks Peter wants to exclude some CPUs from the spread on managed IRQ.