From: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> To: Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com> 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>, 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>, 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 v3 07/14] sched: Introduce restrict_cpus_allowed_ptr() to limit task CPU affinity Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2020 11:05:50 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20201119110549.GA3946@willie-the-truck> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20201119091820.GA2416649@google.com> Hi Quentin, Thanks for having a look. On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 09:18:20AM +0000, Quentin Perret wrote: > On Friday 13 Nov 2020 at 09:37:12 (+0000), Will Deacon wrote: > > -static int __set_cpus_allowed_ptr(struct task_struct *p, > > - const struct cpumask *new_mask, bool check) > > +static int __set_cpus_allowed_ptr_locked(struct task_struct *p, > > + const struct cpumask *new_mask, > > + bool check, > > + struct rq *rq, > > + struct rq_flags *rf) > > { > > const struct cpumask *cpu_valid_mask = cpu_active_mask; > > unsigned int dest_cpu; > > - struct rq_flags rf; > > - struct rq *rq; > > int ret = 0; > > Should we have a lockdep assertion here? I pondered that, but I don't think it's necessary because we already have one in do_set_cpus_allowed() so adding an extra one here doesn't really add anything. > > - rq = task_rq_lock(p, &rf); > > update_rq_clock(rq); > > > > if (p->flags & PF_KTHREAD) { > > @@ -1929,7 +1923,7 @@ static int __set_cpus_allowed_ptr(struct task_struct *p, > > if (task_running(rq, p) || p->state == TASK_WAKING) { > > struct migration_arg arg = { p, dest_cpu }; > > /* Need help from migration thread: drop lock and wait. */ > > - task_rq_unlock(rq, p, &rf); > > + task_rq_unlock(rq, p, rf); > > stop_one_cpu(cpu_of(rq), migration_cpu_stop, &arg); > > return 0; > > } else if (task_on_rq_queued(p)) { > > @@ -1937,20 +1931,69 @@ static int __set_cpus_allowed_ptr(struct task_struct *p, > > * OK, since we're going to drop the lock immediately > > * afterwards anyway. > > */ > > - rq = move_queued_task(rq, &rf, p, dest_cpu); > > + rq = move_queued_task(rq, rf, p, dest_cpu); > > } > > out: > > - task_rq_unlock(rq, p, &rf); > > + task_rq_unlock(rq, p, rf); > > And that's a little odd to have here no? Can we move it back on the > caller's side? I don't think so, unfortunately. __set_cpus_allowed_ptr_locked() can trigger migration, so it can drop the rq lock as part of that and end up relocking a new rq, which it also unlocks before returning. Doing the unlock in the caller is therfore even weirder, because you'd have to return the lock pointer or something horrible like that. I did add a comment about this right before the function and it's an internal function to the scheduler so I think it's ok. Will
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> To: Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com> 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>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@arm.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 v3 07/14] sched: Introduce restrict_cpus_allowed_ptr() to limit task CPU affinity Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2020 11:05:50 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20201119110549.GA3946@willie-the-truck> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20201119091820.GA2416649@google.com> Hi Quentin, Thanks for having a look. On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 09:18:20AM +0000, Quentin Perret wrote: > On Friday 13 Nov 2020 at 09:37:12 (+0000), Will Deacon wrote: > > -static int __set_cpus_allowed_ptr(struct task_struct *p, > > - const struct cpumask *new_mask, bool check) > > +static int __set_cpus_allowed_ptr_locked(struct task_struct *p, > > + const struct cpumask *new_mask, > > + bool check, > > + struct rq *rq, > > + struct rq_flags *rf) > > { > > const struct cpumask *cpu_valid_mask = cpu_active_mask; > > unsigned int dest_cpu; > > - struct rq_flags rf; > > - struct rq *rq; > > int ret = 0; > > Should we have a lockdep assertion here? I pondered that, but I don't think it's necessary because we already have one in do_set_cpus_allowed() so adding an extra one here doesn't really add anything. > > - rq = task_rq_lock(p, &rf); > > update_rq_clock(rq); > > > > if (p->flags & PF_KTHREAD) { > > @@ -1929,7 +1923,7 @@ static int __set_cpus_allowed_ptr(struct task_struct *p, > > if (task_running(rq, p) || p->state == TASK_WAKING) { > > struct migration_arg arg = { p, dest_cpu }; > > /* Need help from migration thread: drop lock and wait. */ > > - task_rq_unlock(rq, p, &rf); > > + task_rq_unlock(rq, p, rf); > > stop_one_cpu(cpu_of(rq), migration_cpu_stop, &arg); > > return 0; > > } else if (task_on_rq_queued(p)) { > > @@ -1937,20 +1931,69 @@ static int __set_cpus_allowed_ptr(struct task_struct *p, > > * OK, since we're going to drop the lock immediately > > * afterwards anyway. > > */ > > - rq = move_queued_task(rq, &rf, p, dest_cpu); > > + rq = move_queued_task(rq, rf, p, dest_cpu); > > } > > out: > > - task_rq_unlock(rq, p, &rf); > > + task_rq_unlock(rq, p, rf); > > And that's a little odd to have here no? Can we move it back on the > caller's side? I don't think so, unfortunately. __set_cpus_allowed_ptr_locked() can trigger migration, so it can drop the rq lock as part of that and end up relocking a new rq, which it also unlocks before returning. Doing the unlock in the caller is therfore even weirder, because you'd have to return the lock pointer or something horrible like that. I did add a comment about this right before the function and it's an internal function to the scheduler so I think it's ok. 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:[~2020-11-19 11:06 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 104+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2020-11-13 9:37 [PATCH v3 00/14] An alternative series for asymmetric AArch32 systems Will Deacon 2020-11-13 9:37 ` Will Deacon 2020-11-13 9:37 ` [PATCH v3 01/14] arm64: cpuinfo: Split AArch32 registers out into a separate struct Will Deacon 2020-11-13 9:37 ` Will Deacon 2020-11-13 9:37 ` [PATCH v3 02/14] arm64: Allow mismatched 32-bit EL0 support Will Deacon 2020-11-13 9:37 ` Will Deacon 2020-11-19 11:27 ` Valentin Schneider 2020-11-19 11:27 ` Valentin Schneider 2020-11-19 13:12 ` Will Deacon 2020-11-19 13:12 ` Will Deacon 2020-11-13 9:37 ` [PATCH v3 03/14] KVM: arm64: Kill 32-bit vCPUs on systems with mismatched " Will Deacon 2020-11-13 9:37 ` Will Deacon 2020-11-13 9:37 ` [PATCH v3 04/14] arm64: Kill 32-bit applications scheduled on 64-bit-only CPUs Will Deacon 2020-11-13 9:37 ` Will Deacon 2020-11-13 9:37 ` [PATCH v3 05/14] arm64: Advertise CPUs capable of running 32-bit applications in sysfs Will Deacon 2020-11-13 9:37 ` Will Deacon 2020-11-13 9:37 ` [PATCH v3 06/14] arm64: Hook up cmdline parameter to allow mismatched 32-bit EL0 Will Deacon 2020-11-13 9:37 ` Will Deacon 2020-11-13 9:37 ` [PATCH v3 07/14] sched: Introduce restrict_cpus_allowed_ptr() to limit task CPU affinity Will Deacon 2020-11-13 9:37 ` Will Deacon 2020-11-19 9:18 ` Quentin Perret 2020-11-19 9:18 ` Quentin Perret 2020-11-19 11:03 ` Quentin Perret 2020-11-19 11:03 ` Quentin Perret 2020-11-19 11:05 ` Will Deacon [this message] 2020-11-19 11:05 ` Will Deacon 2020-11-19 11:27 ` Valentin Schneider 2020-11-19 11:27 ` Valentin Schneider 2020-11-19 13:13 ` Will Deacon 2020-11-19 13:13 ` Will Deacon 2020-11-19 14:54 ` Valentin Schneider 2020-11-19 14:54 ` Valentin Schneider 2020-11-19 16:41 ` Will Deacon 2020-11-19 16:41 ` Will Deacon 2020-11-19 12:47 ` Valentin Schneider 2020-11-19 12:47 ` Valentin Schneider 2020-11-19 13:13 ` Will Deacon 2020-11-19 13:13 ` Will Deacon 2020-11-19 14:54 ` Valentin Schneider 2020-11-19 14:54 ` Valentin Schneider 2020-11-19 16:09 ` Peter Zijlstra 2020-11-19 16:09 ` Peter Zijlstra 2020-11-19 16:57 ` Valentin Schneider 2020-11-19 16:57 ` Valentin Schneider 2020-11-19 19:25 ` Will Deacon 2020-11-19 19:25 ` Will Deacon 2020-11-13 9:37 ` [PATCH v3 08/14] arm64: exec: Adjust affinity for compat tasks with mismatched 32-bit EL0 Will Deacon 2020-11-13 9:37 ` Will Deacon 2020-11-19 9:24 ` Quentin Perret 2020-11-19 9:24 ` Quentin Perret 2020-11-19 11:06 ` Will Deacon 2020-11-19 11:06 ` Will Deacon 2020-11-19 16:19 ` Peter Zijlstra 2020-11-19 16:19 ` Peter Zijlstra 2020-11-19 16:30 ` Will Deacon 2020-11-19 16:30 ` Will Deacon 2020-11-19 16:44 ` Peter Zijlstra 2020-11-19 16:44 ` Peter Zijlstra 2020-11-19 16:51 ` Will Deacon 2020-11-19 16:51 ` Will Deacon 2020-11-19 16:14 ` Peter Zijlstra 2020-11-19 16:14 ` Peter Zijlstra 2020-11-19 16:28 ` Will Deacon 2020-11-19 16:28 ` Will Deacon 2020-11-19 16:42 ` Peter Zijlstra 2020-11-19 16:42 ` Peter Zijlstra 2020-11-19 16:48 ` Will Deacon 2020-11-19 16:48 ` Will Deacon 2020-11-13 9:37 ` [PATCH v3 09/14] cpuset: Don't use the cpu_possible_mask as a last resort for cgroup v1 Will Deacon 2020-11-13 9:37 ` Will Deacon 2020-11-19 9:29 ` Quentin Perret 2020-11-19 9:29 ` Quentin Perret 2020-11-19 11:06 ` Will Deacon 2020-11-19 11:06 ` Will Deacon 2020-11-13 9:37 ` [PATCH v3 10/14] sched: Introduce arch_cpu_allowed_mask() to limit fallback rq selection Will Deacon 2020-11-13 9:37 ` Will Deacon 2020-11-19 9:38 ` Quentin Perret 2020-11-19 9:38 ` Quentin Perret 2020-11-19 11:07 ` Will Deacon 2020-11-19 11:07 ` Will Deacon 2020-11-19 20:39 ` Will Deacon 2020-11-19 20:39 ` Will Deacon 2020-11-23 14:48 ` Quentin Perret 2020-11-23 14:48 ` Quentin Perret 2020-11-13 9:37 ` [PATCH v3 11/14] sched: Reject CPU affinity changes based on arch_cpu_allowed_mask() Will Deacon 2020-11-13 9:37 ` Will Deacon 2020-11-19 9:47 ` Quentin Perret 2020-11-19 9:47 ` Quentin Perret 2020-11-19 11:07 ` Will Deacon 2020-11-19 11:07 ` Will Deacon 2020-11-19 14:30 ` Quentin Perret 2020-11-19 14:30 ` Quentin Perret 2020-11-19 16:44 ` Will Deacon 2020-11-19 16:44 ` Will Deacon 2020-11-13 9:37 ` [PATCH v3 12/14] arm64: Prevent offlining first CPU with 32-bit EL0 on mismatched system Will Deacon 2020-11-13 9:37 ` Will Deacon 2020-11-13 9:37 ` [PATCH v3 13/14] arm64: Implement arch_cpu_allowed_mask() Will Deacon 2020-11-13 9:37 ` Will Deacon 2020-11-13 9:37 ` [PATCH v3 14/14] arm64: Remove logic to kill 32-bit tasks on 64-bit-only cores Will Deacon 2020-11-13 9:37 ` Will Deacon 2020-11-19 16:11 ` [PATCH v3 00/14] An alternative series for asymmetric AArch32 systems Peter Zijlstra 2020-11-19 16:11 ` Peter Zijlstra 2020-11-19 16:39 ` Will Deacon 2020-11-19 16:39 ` Will Deacon
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=20201119110549.GA3946@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.