Re: [PATCH v6 13/21] sched: Admit forcefully-affined tasks into SCHED_DEADLINE

From: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
To: Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
	Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
	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>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>,
	Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@arm.com>,
	Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
	kernel-team@android.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 13/21] sched: Admit forcefully-affined tasks into SCHED_DEADLINE
Date: Thu, 20 May 2021 19:55:27 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <8bc24850-3a14-5dd2-fbc2-bf745616949f@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <eff0f358-d5f3-47c7-539b-527814093f89@redhat.com>

On 20/05/2021 18:00, Daniel Bristot de Oliveira wrote:
> On 5/20/21 5:06 PM, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
>> On 20/05/2021 14:38, Daniel Bristot de Oliveira wrote:
>>> On 5/20/21 12:33 PM, Quentin Perret wrote:
>>>> On Thursday 20 May 2021 at 11:16:41 (+0100), Will Deacon wrote:
>>>>> Ok, thanks for the insight. In which case, I'll go with what we discussed:
>>>>> require admission control to be disabled for sched_setattr() but allow
>>>>> execve() to a 32-bit task from a 64-bit deadline task with a warning (this
>>>>> is probably similar to CPU hotplug?).
>>>>
>>>> Still not sure that we can let execve go through ... It will break AC
>>>> all the same, so it should probably fail as well if AC is on IMO
>>>>
>>>
>>> If the cpumask of the 32-bit task is != of the 64-bit task that is executing it,
>>> the admission control needs to be re-executed, and it could fail. So I see this
>>> operation equivalent to sched_setaffinity(). This will likely be true for future
>>> schedulers that will allow arbitrary affinities (AC should run on affinity
>>> change, and could fail).
>>>
>>> I would vote with Juri: "I'd go with fail hard if AC is on, let it
>>> pass if AC is off (supposedly the user knows what to do)," (also hope nobody
>>> complains until we add better support for affinity, and use this as a motivation
>>> to get back on this front).
>>>
>>> -- Daniel
>>
>> (1) # chrt -d -T 5000000 -P 16666666 0 ./32bit_app
>>
>> (2) # ./32bit_app &
>>
>>     # chrt -d -T 5000000 -P 16666666 -p 0 pid_of(32bit_app)
>>
>>
>> Wouldn't the behaviour of (1) and (2) be different w/o this patch?
>>
>> In (1) __sched_setscheduler() happens before execve so it operates on
>> p->cpus_ptr equal span.
>>
>> In (2) span != p->cpus_ptr so DL AC will fail.
>>
> 
> As far as I got, the case (1) would be spitted in two steps:
> 
>  - __sched_setscheduler() will work, then
>  - execv() would fail because (span != p->cpus_ptr)
> 
> So... at the end, both (1) and (2) would result in a failure...
> 
> am I missing something?

Not sure. Reading this thread I was under the assumption that the only
change would be the drop of this patch. But I assume there is also this
'if DL AC is on then let sched_setattr() fail for this 32bit task'.

IMHO, the current patch-stack w/o this patch should let (1) succeed with
DL AC.

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel