From: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>, Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>, Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>, Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@arm.com>, Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>, Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>, Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>, kernel-team@android.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/15] An alternative series for asymmetric AArch32 systems Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2020 18:50:12 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20201215185012.GA15566@willie-the-truck> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20201215173645.GJ3040@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> Hi Peter, Cheers for taking a look. On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 06:36:45PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 01:28:20PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > The aim of this series is to allow 32-bit ARM applications to run on > > arm64 SoCs where not all of the CPUs support the 32-bit instruction set. > > Unfortunately, such SoCs are real and will continue to be productised > > over the next few years at least. I can assure you that I'm not just > > doing this for fun. > > > > Changes in v5 include: > > > > * Teach cpuset_cpus_allowed() about task_cpu_possible_mask() so that > > we can avoid returning incompatible CPUs for a given task. This > > means that sched_setaffinity() can be used with larger masks (like > > the online mask) from userspace and also allows us to take into > > account the cpuset hierarchy when forcefully overriding the affinity > > for a task on execve(). > > > > * Honour task_cpu_possible_mask() when attaching a task to a cpuset, > > so that the resulting affinity mask does not contain any incompatible > > CPUs (since it would be rejected by set_cpus_allowed_ptr() otherwise). > > > > * Moved overriding of the affinity mask into the scheduler core rather > > than munge affinity masks directly in the architecture backend. > > Hurmph... so if I can still read, this thing will auto truncate the > affinity mask to something that only contains compatible CPUs, right? > > Assuming our system has 8 CPUs (0xFF), half of which are 32bit capable > (0x0F), then, when our native task (with affinity 0x3c) does a > fork()+execve() of a 32bit thingy the resulting task has 0x0c. > > If that in turn does fork()+execve() of a native task, it will retain > the trucated affinity mask (0x0c), instead of returning to the wider > mask (0x3c). > > IOW, any (accidental or otherwise) trip through a 32bit helper, will > destroy user state (the affinity mask: 0x3c). Yes, that's correct, and I agree that it's a rough edge. If you're happy with the idea of adding an extra mask to make this work, then I can start hacking that up (although I doubt I'll get something out before the new year at this point). > Should we perhaps split task_struct::cpus_mask, one to keep an original > copy of the user state, and one to be an effective cpumask for the task? > That way, the moment a task constricts or widens it's > task_cpu_possible_mask() we can re-compute the effective mask without > loss of information. Hmm, we might already have most of the pieces in place for this (modulo the extra field), since cpuset_cpus_allowed() provides the limiting mask now so this might be relatively straightforward. Famous last words... Will
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>, kernel-team@android.com, Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>, Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@arm.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>, Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/15] An alternative series for asymmetric AArch32 systems Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2020 18:50:12 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20201215185012.GA15566@willie-the-truck> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20201215173645.GJ3040@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> Hi Peter, Cheers for taking a look. On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 06:36:45PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 01:28:20PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > The aim of this series is to allow 32-bit ARM applications to run on > > arm64 SoCs where not all of the CPUs support the 32-bit instruction set. > > Unfortunately, such SoCs are real and will continue to be productised > > over the next few years at least. I can assure you that I'm not just > > doing this for fun. > > > > Changes in v5 include: > > > > * Teach cpuset_cpus_allowed() about task_cpu_possible_mask() so that > > we can avoid returning incompatible CPUs for a given task. This > > means that sched_setaffinity() can be used with larger masks (like > > the online mask) from userspace and also allows us to take into > > account the cpuset hierarchy when forcefully overriding the affinity > > for a task on execve(). > > > > * Honour task_cpu_possible_mask() when attaching a task to a cpuset, > > so that the resulting affinity mask does not contain any incompatible > > CPUs (since it would be rejected by set_cpus_allowed_ptr() otherwise). > > > > * Moved overriding of the affinity mask into the scheduler core rather > > than munge affinity masks directly in the architecture backend. > > Hurmph... so if I can still read, this thing will auto truncate the > affinity mask to something that only contains compatible CPUs, right? > > Assuming our system has 8 CPUs (0xFF), half of which are 32bit capable > (0x0F), then, when our native task (with affinity 0x3c) does a > fork()+execve() of a 32bit thingy the resulting task has 0x0c. > > If that in turn does fork()+execve() of a native task, it will retain > the trucated affinity mask (0x0c), instead of returning to the wider > mask (0x3c). > > IOW, any (accidental or otherwise) trip through a 32bit helper, will > destroy user state (the affinity mask: 0x3c). Yes, that's correct, and I agree that it's a rough edge. If you're happy with the idea of adding an extra mask to make this work, then I can start hacking that up (although I doubt I'll get something out before the new year at this point). > Should we perhaps split task_struct::cpus_mask, one to keep an original > copy of the user state, and one to be an effective cpumask for the task? > That way, the moment a task constricts or widens it's > task_cpu_possible_mask() we can re-compute the effective mask without > loss of information. Hmm, we might already have most of the pieces in place for this (modulo the extra field), since cpuset_cpus_allowed() provides the limiting mask now so this might be relatively straightforward. Famous last words... Will _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-12-15 18:51 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 58+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2020-12-08 13:28 [PATCH v5 00/15] An alternative series for asymmetric AArch32 systems Will Deacon 2020-12-08 13:28 ` Will Deacon 2020-12-08 13:28 ` [PATCH v5 01/15] arm64: cpuinfo: Split AArch32 registers out into a separate struct Will Deacon 2020-12-08 13:28 ` Will Deacon 2020-12-08 13:28 ` [PATCH v5 02/15] arm64: Allow mismatched 32-bit EL0 support Will Deacon 2020-12-08 13:28 ` Will Deacon 2020-12-08 13:28 ` [PATCH v5 03/15] KVM: arm64: Kill 32-bit vCPUs on systems with mismatched " Will Deacon 2020-12-08 13:28 ` Will Deacon 2020-12-08 13:28 ` [PATCH v5 04/15] arm64: Kill 32-bit applications scheduled on 64-bit-only CPUs Will Deacon 2020-12-08 13:28 ` Will Deacon 2020-12-08 13:28 ` [PATCH v5 05/15] arm64: Advertise CPUs capable of running 32-bit applications in sysfs Will Deacon 2020-12-08 13:28 ` Will Deacon 2020-12-08 13:28 ` [PATCH v5 06/15] sched: Introduce task_cpu_possible_mask() to limit fallback rq selection Will Deacon 2020-12-08 13:28 ` Will Deacon 2020-12-08 13:28 ` [PATCH v5 07/15] cpuset: Don't use the cpu_possible_mask as a last resort for cgroup v1 Will Deacon 2020-12-08 13:28 ` Will Deacon 2020-12-17 12:15 ` Qais Yousef 2020-12-17 12:15 ` Qais Yousef 2020-12-17 13:44 ` Peter Zijlstra 2020-12-17 13:44 ` Peter Zijlstra 2020-12-17 14:59 ` Will Deacon 2020-12-17 14:59 ` Will Deacon 2020-12-17 15:00 ` Qais Yousef 2020-12-17 15:00 ` Qais Yousef 2020-12-08 13:28 ` [PATCH v5 08/15] cpuset: Honour task_cpu_possible_mask() in guarantee_online_cpus() Will Deacon 2020-12-08 13:28 ` Will Deacon 2020-12-28 3:54 ` Suren Baghdasaryan 2020-12-28 3:54 ` Suren Baghdasaryan 2020-12-08 13:28 ` [PATCH v5 09/15] sched: Reject CPU affinity changes based on task_cpu_possible_mask() Will Deacon 2020-12-08 13:28 ` Will Deacon 2020-12-08 13:28 ` [PATCH v5 10/15] sched: Introduce force_compatible_cpus_allowed_ptr() to limit CPU affinity Will Deacon 2020-12-08 13:28 ` Will Deacon 2020-12-28 4:29 ` Suren Baghdasaryan 2020-12-28 4:29 ` Suren Baghdasaryan 2020-12-08 13:28 ` [PATCH v5 11/15] arm64: Implement task_cpu_possible_mask() Will Deacon 2020-12-08 13:28 ` Will Deacon 2020-12-08 13:28 ` [PATCH v5 12/15] arm64: exec: Adjust affinity for compat tasks with mismatched 32-bit EL0 Will Deacon 2020-12-08 13:28 ` Will Deacon 2020-12-08 13:28 ` [PATCH v5 13/15] arm64: Prevent offlining first CPU with 32-bit EL0 on mismatched system Will Deacon 2020-12-08 13:28 ` Will Deacon 2020-12-08 13:28 ` [PATCH v5 14/15] arm64: Hook up cmdline parameter to allow mismatched 32-bit EL0 Will Deacon 2020-12-08 13:28 ` Will Deacon 2020-12-08 13:28 ` [PATCH v5 15/15] arm64: Remove logic to kill 32-bit tasks on 64-bit-only cores Will Deacon 2020-12-08 13:28 ` Will Deacon 2020-12-15 17:36 ` [PATCH v5 00/15] An alternative series for asymmetric AArch32 systems Peter Zijlstra 2020-12-15 17:36 ` Peter Zijlstra 2020-12-15 18:50 ` Will Deacon [this message] 2020-12-15 18:50 ` Will Deacon 2020-12-17 10:55 ` Peter Zijlstra 2020-12-17 10:55 ` Peter Zijlstra 2020-12-16 11:16 ` Qais Yousef 2020-12-16 11:16 ` Qais Yousef 2020-12-16 14:14 ` Will Deacon 2020-12-16 14:14 ` Will Deacon 2020-12-16 16:48 ` Qais Yousef 2020-12-16 16:48 ` Qais Yousef 2020-12-16 18:21 ` Suren Baghdasaryan 2020-12-16 18:21 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20201215185012.GA15566@willie-the-truck \ --to=will@kernel.org \ --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \ --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \ --cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \ --cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \ --cc=kernel-team@android.com \ --cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=lizefan@huawei.com \ --cc=maz@kernel.org \ --cc=mingo@redhat.com \ --cc=morten.rasmussen@arm.com \ --cc=peterz@infradead.org \ --cc=qais.yousef@arm.com \ --cc=qperret@google.com \ --cc=surenb@google.com \ --cc=tj@kernel.org \ --cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.