From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-23.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_MED, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7C01C433E0 for ; Mon, 28 Dec 2020 03:55:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72729221F9 for ; Mon, 28 Dec 2020 03:55:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726309AbgL1Dy6 (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Dec 2020 22:54:58 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:48706 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726178AbgL1Dy5 (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Dec 2020 22:54:57 -0500 Received: from mail-wm1-x331.google.com (mail-wm1-x331.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::331]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D4866C061795 for ; Sun, 27 Dec 2020 19:54:16 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wm1-x331.google.com with SMTP id a6so9408074wmc.2 for ; Sun, 27 Dec 2020 19:54:16 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=AgMlEQMwUkkD6KJWmCk8NsuP2RHpzUCaGkYxuaH4YTc=; b=F+QwU0Wo8DuBl8Z9FBsz5fNvziobnxRqBpjpHmQ1SV6/BC2nIrgb/RTTDfCMw1whQj dLuX3bIBJTUcmrz24ak5lE+q9WdyGwnAqdt6AyI5mWvBJXX0JDTvCw9RBXhIdW7mgYcS 3TFtlH+K/+SsI9YlW5eMUWNNBFRr5UAhBSU42/DNbFBID9PcK+cqQAb9V7ewb7avDP6q IMMCXsCwNMJmv8067DCuskSb9UWiAjYRnQlnSk+GVm45dCfNwt+EmdqUtG/I90Bo3P2l k61Mb4OFE3X9AYyIhQAt/q43pCcl4HRaMJPS5yPp3VxNKal4DeX9q5T9/vpdcHKbYaOG XkJQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=AgMlEQMwUkkD6KJWmCk8NsuP2RHpzUCaGkYxuaH4YTc=; b=LZWSX8Ef5fGHe1V9EPtjGNxrGCs8x/KjsKJMRloknfFcTxXb+akyBkIcfSegNWniU6 FrCTUZY+T5ZW2s+P0VB1IBCYGBALGzD2XWKGr/l6U26GzAaYi1EK0F3eMcAbhGh2AulX qn96bi/xwXeX/pmYqvzheoWyhO7KiVSaAzKC6X50SwGjniXO+oq5zojYrUpl6StLRWan PO0/N3pZbFvRe8cFNbp45BOFSQpswkz+cXxwDA23RDdZADFpJvsPsLipRnONT9BceFka +9tA3taKX13bkCL+3+ENk/VbFBjjec+se1/lPaQQfkfOsbFwKukOxztkLIrxbwXU1olW PxUQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533knP+q4NCJx+tFFaD43z5zyrDVjp0K537GVwsAwhqz/SRoUO2+ gtG7WOv+WAeIgDwoQbXlCtwPphr3IYFzlI2xOEVF4Q== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyaepeWrP1v+M/ADiUbWr4ekoIQPI5jggNjY05iEVcVIFiSfpAL6sGe8s8jBsSHmCEKcZWbns5tqxn0nE8Uqlc= X-Received: by 2002:a7b:cf37:: with SMTP id m23mr18395649wmg.37.1609127655318; Sun, 27 Dec 2020 19:54:15 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20201208132835.6151-1-will@kernel.org> <20201208132835.6151-9-will@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: <20201208132835.6151-9-will@kernel.org> From: Suren Baghdasaryan Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2020 19:54:04 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 08/15] cpuset: Honour task_cpu_possible_mask() in guarantee_online_cpus() To: Will Deacon Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, LKML , Catalin Marinas , Marc Zyngier , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Peter Zijlstra , Morten Rasmussen , Qais Yousef , Quentin Perret , Tejun Heo , Li Zefan , Johannes Weiner , Ingo Molnar , Juri Lelli , Vincent Guittot , kernel-team Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 5:29 AM Will Deacon wrote: > > Asymmetric systems may not offer the same level of userspace ISA support > across all CPUs, meaning that some applications cannot be executed by > some CPUs. As a concrete example, upcoming arm64 big.LITTLE designs do > not feature support for 32-bit applications on both clusters. > > Modify guarantee_online_cpus() to take task_cpu_possible_mask() into > account when trying to find a suitable set of online CPUs for a given > task. This will avoid passing an invalid mask to set_cpus_allowed_ptr() > during ->attach() and will subsequently allow the cpuset hierarchy to be > taken into account when forcefully overriding the affinity mask for a > task which requires migration to a compatible CPU. > > Cc: Li Zefan > Cc: Tejun Heo > Cc: Johannes Weiner > Signed-off-by: Will Deacon > --- > include/linux/cpuset.h | 3 ++- > kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++++-------------- > 2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/include/linux/cpuset.h b/include/linux/cpuset.h > index 04c20de66afc..414a8e694413 100644 > --- a/include/linux/cpuset.h > +++ b/include/linux/cpuset.h > @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@ > #include > #include > #include > +#include > #include > > #ifdef CONFIG_CPUSETS > @@ -184,7 +185,7 @@ static inline void cpuset_read_unlock(void) { } > static inline void cpuset_cpus_allowed(struct task_struct *p, > struct cpumask *mask) > { > - cpumask_copy(mask, cpu_possible_mask); > + cpumask_copy(mask, task_cpu_possible_mask(p)); > } > > static inline void cpuset_cpus_allowed_fallback(struct task_struct *p) > diff --git a/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c b/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c > index e970737c3ed2..d30febf1f69f 100644 > --- a/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c > +++ b/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c > @@ -372,18 +372,26 @@ static inline bool is_in_v2_mode(void) > } > > /* > - * Return in pmask the portion of a cpusets's cpus_allowed that > - * are online. If none are online, walk up the cpuset hierarchy > - * until we find one that does have some online cpus. > + * Return in pmask the portion of a task's cpusets's cpus_allowed that > + * are online and are capable of running the task. If none are found, > + * walk up the cpuset hierarchy until we find one that does have some > + * appropriate cpus. > * > * One way or another, we guarantee to return some non-empty subset > * of cpu_online_mask. > * > * Call with callback_lock or cpuset_mutex held. > */ > -static void guarantee_online_cpus(struct cpuset *cs, struct cpumask *pmask) > +static void guarantee_online_cpus(struct task_struct *tsk, > + struct cpumask *pmask) > { > - while (!cpumask_intersects(cs->effective_cpus, cpu_online_mask)) { > + struct cpuset *cs = task_cs(tsk); > + const struct cpumask *possible_mask = task_cpu_possible_mask(tsk); > + > + if (WARN_ON(!cpumask_and(pmask, possible_mask, cpu_online_mask))) IIUC, this represents the case when there is no online CPU that can run this task. In this situation guarantee_online_cpus() will return an online CPU which can't run the task (because we ignore possible_mask). I don't think this can be considered a valid fallback path. However I think patch [13/15] ensures that we never end up in this situation by disallowing to offline the last 32-bit capable CPU. If that's true then maybe the patches can be reordered so that [13/15] comes before this one and this condition can be treated as a bug here? > + cpumask_copy(pmask, cpu_online_mask); > + > + while (!cpumask_intersects(cs->effective_cpus, pmask)) { > cs = parent_cs(cs); > if (unlikely(!cs)) { > /* > @@ -393,11 +401,10 @@ static void guarantee_online_cpus(struct cpuset *cs, struct cpumask *pmask) > * cpuset's effective_cpus is on its way to be > * identical to cpu_online_mask. > */ > - cpumask_copy(pmask, cpu_online_mask); > return; > } > } > - cpumask_and(pmask, cs->effective_cpus, cpu_online_mask); > + cpumask_and(pmask, pmask, cs->effective_cpus); > } > > /* > @@ -2176,15 +2183,13 @@ static void cpuset_attach(struct cgroup_taskset *tset) > > percpu_down_write(&cpuset_rwsem); > > - /* prepare for attach */ > - if (cs == &top_cpuset) > - cpumask_copy(cpus_attach, cpu_possible_mask); > - else > - guarantee_online_cpus(cs, cpus_attach); > - > guarantee_online_mems(cs, &cpuset_attach_nodemask_to); > > cgroup_taskset_for_each(task, css, tset) { > + if (cs != &top_cpuset) > + guarantee_online_cpus(task, cpus_attach); > + else > + cpumask_copy(cpus_attach, task_cpu_possible_mask(task)); > /* > * can_attach beforehand should guarantee that this doesn't > * fail. TODO: have a better way to handle failure here > @@ -3280,7 +3285,7 @@ void cpuset_cpus_allowed(struct task_struct *tsk, struct cpumask *pmask) > > spin_lock_irqsave(&callback_lock, flags); > rcu_read_lock(); > - guarantee_online_cpus(task_cs(tsk), pmask); > + guarantee_online_cpus(tsk, pmask); > rcu_read_unlock(); > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&callback_lock, flags); > } > -- > 2.29.2.576.ga3fc446d84-goog > From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-13.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C82DEC433DB for ; Mon, 28 Dec 2020 03:57:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from merlin.infradead.org (merlin.infradead.org [205.233.59.134]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 77702208B3 for ; Mon, 28 Dec 2020 03:57:40 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 77702208B3 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=merlin.20170209; h=Sender:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:Cc:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post:List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:To:Subject:Message-ID:Date:From:In-Reply-To: References:MIME-Version:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=a7a2oSptmb8B6b0pq9d5I38ZnKGK9NpbrR0eO2Ml11w=; b=fjkTB1QR8R/uFNQ2yFzW0JTkd AdUwXsbw3J/NRl9S2/MwDfFV7Ud2ZdUFSsRXuKkzVlL1BVnhqKZblg0W5g9b1dR9yWM36dXpmGu8g 0/Vvg8AP1EcomO3+QjyQJB6bnD9OxyERLgnCh/GVWOU4QLHeaI9YxC0RSj+h28UO4rYEO/I9/rSEz dZz8Ho3rAZ7hHVunORChAFM+AkiChwCTYsZRCQHGnLLvOLY1mHnPeglyThQdTymTm1TUp1Qp1ZzSb AVnhTRE6V0gyE5YjutcFwxYG+EW9/vFOAAn23cMfrrS/0tJ/UuQP2gxz11cDPb1qF2h+JtNTwmPDV dsW27o/8A==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=merlin.infradead.org) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1ktjby-0001X1-O1; Mon, 28 Dec 2020 03:54:22 +0000 Received: from mail-wm1-x32b.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::32b]) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1ktjbw-0001WL-3p for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 28 Dec 2020 03:54:21 +0000 Received: by mail-wm1-x32b.google.com with SMTP id 190so9422259wmz.0 for ; Sun, 27 Dec 2020 19:54:16 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=AgMlEQMwUkkD6KJWmCk8NsuP2RHpzUCaGkYxuaH4YTc=; b=F+QwU0Wo8DuBl8Z9FBsz5fNvziobnxRqBpjpHmQ1SV6/BC2nIrgb/RTTDfCMw1whQj dLuX3bIBJTUcmrz24ak5lE+q9WdyGwnAqdt6AyI5mWvBJXX0JDTvCw9RBXhIdW7mgYcS 3TFtlH+K/+SsI9YlW5eMUWNNBFRr5UAhBSU42/DNbFBID9PcK+cqQAb9V7ewb7avDP6q IMMCXsCwNMJmv8067DCuskSb9UWiAjYRnQlnSk+GVm45dCfNwt+EmdqUtG/I90Bo3P2l k61Mb4OFE3X9AYyIhQAt/q43pCcl4HRaMJPS5yPp3VxNKal4DeX9q5T9/vpdcHKbYaOG XkJQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=AgMlEQMwUkkD6KJWmCk8NsuP2RHpzUCaGkYxuaH4YTc=; b=PqlpFMhjN6FOq5BmrRN9X9b4+BfBuJYMF32/WrLTzKxsFAu/efErVJbM+LHSI1l0Ei 6R+y265km6rOVqeSWPF+5MiAblnLeleLQptOqooZ2iN/Cct6YyaaD5NX1TI9h4X8DVsv wPzJ7Zk3oL1wSsTTT+TQJ8AKFyrg3dFYyhH13kT7It+Crmg/lXHDdQhbTtbhIA+u8kMk g2WSVLRSsN+ImBiitK8Ga1BC0TytkgRioISvHouNaPysAPucFE0mUMK9ebpZYI8rRqAN tASOY16dTYZUu2pZaxqHv5F2G8FBkumksUnmCazkaP7EsIefVTQnW+hMc4X0ogEWDUZD kJPw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531mpkFaxFNsIV2pMH6qcqLTv97QtqX9BQuyiki80J7FuhtI2SVo bWLd7FjxIK96KpbnOoM/aoHIJPzGmnKew24goCNiBA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyaepeWrP1v+M/ADiUbWr4ekoIQPI5jggNjY05iEVcVIFiSfpAL6sGe8s8jBsSHmCEKcZWbns5tqxn0nE8Uqlc= X-Received: by 2002:a7b:cf37:: with SMTP id m23mr18395649wmg.37.1609127655318; Sun, 27 Dec 2020 19:54:15 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20201208132835.6151-1-will@kernel.org> <20201208132835.6151-9-will@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: <20201208132835.6151-9-will@kernel.org> From: Suren Baghdasaryan Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2020 19:54:04 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 08/15] cpuset: Honour task_cpu_possible_mask() in guarantee_online_cpus() To: Will Deacon X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20201227_225420_206152_385B8FF3 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 29.39 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Marc Zyngier , kernel-team , Vincent Guittot , Juri Lelli , Quentin Perret , Peter Zijlstra , Catalin Marinas , Johannes Weiner , LKML , Qais Yousef , Li Zefan , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Tejun Heo , Ingo Molnar , Morten Rasmussen , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 5:29 AM Will Deacon wrote: > > Asymmetric systems may not offer the same level of userspace ISA support > across all CPUs, meaning that some applications cannot be executed by > some CPUs. As a concrete example, upcoming arm64 big.LITTLE designs do > not feature support for 32-bit applications on both clusters. > > Modify guarantee_online_cpus() to take task_cpu_possible_mask() into > account when trying to find a suitable set of online CPUs for a given > task. This will avoid passing an invalid mask to set_cpus_allowed_ptr() > during ->attach() and will subsequently allow the cpuset hierarchy to be > taken into account when forcefully overriding the affinity mask for a > task which requires migration to a compatible CPU. > > Cc: Li Zefan > Cc: Tejun Heo > Cc: Johannes Weiner > Signed-off-by: Will Deacon > --- > include/linux/cpuset.h | 3 ++- > kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++++-------------- > 2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/include/linux/cpuset.h b/include/linux/cpuset.h > index 04c20de66afc..414a8e694413 100644 > --- a/include/linux/cpuset.h > +++ b/include/linux/cpuset.h > @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@ > #include > #include > #include > +#include > #include > > #ifdef CONFIG_CPUSETS > @@ -184,7 +185,7 @@ static inline void cpuset_read_unlock(void) { } > static inline void cpuset_cpus_allowed(struct task_struct *p, > struct cpumask *mask) > { > - cpumask_copy(mask, cpu_possible_mask); > + cpumask_copy(mask, task_cpu_possible_mask(p)); > } > > static inline void cpuset_cpus_allowed_fallback(struct task_struct *p) > diff --git a/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c b/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c > index e970737c3ed2..d30febf1f69f 100644 > --- a/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c > +++ b/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c > @@ -372,18 +372,26 @@ static inline bool is_in_v2_mode(void) > } > > /* > - * Return in pmask the portion of a cpusets's cpus_allowed that > - * are online. If none are online, walk up the cpuset hierarchy > - * until we find one that does have some online cpus. > + * Return in pmask the portion of a task's cpusets's cpus_allowed that > + * are online and are capable of running the task. If none are found, > + * walk up the cpuset hierarchy until we find one that does have some > + * appropriate cpus. > * > * One way or another, we guarantee to return some non-empty subset > * of cpu_online_mask. > * > * Call with callback_lock or cpuset_mutex held. > */ > -static void guarantee_online_cpus(struct cpuset *cs, struct cpumask *pmask) > +static void guarantee_online_cpus(struct task_struct *tsk, > + struct cpumask *pmask) > { > - while (!cpumask_intersects(cs->effective_cpus, cpu_online_mask)) { > + struct cpuset *cs = task_cs(tsk); > + const struct cpumask *possible_mask = task_cpu_possible_mask(tsk); > + > + if (WARN_ON(!cpumask_and(pmask, possible_mask, cpu_online_mask))) IIUC, this represents the case when there is no online CPU that can run this task. In this situation guarantee_online_cpus() will return an online CPU which can't run the task (because we ignore possible_mask). I don't think this can be considered a valid fallback path. However I think patch [13/15] ensures that we never end up in this situation by disallowing to offline the last 32-bit capable CPU. If that's true then maybe the patches can be reordered so that [13/15] comes before this one and this condition can be treated as a bug here? > + cpumask_copy(pmask, cpu_online_mask); > + > + while (!cpumask_intersects(cs->effective_cpus, pmask)) { > cs = parent_cs(cs); > if (unlikely(!cs)) { > /* > @@ -393,11 +401,10 @@ static void guarantee_online_cpus(struct cpuset *cs, struct cpumask *pmask) > * cpuset's effective_cpus is on its way to be > * identical to cpu_online_mask. > */ > - cpumask_copy(pmask, cpu_online_mask); > return; > } > } > - cpumask_and(pmask, cs->effective_cpus, cpu_online_mask); > + cpumask_and(pmask, pmask, cs->effective_cpus); > } > > /* > @@ -2176,15 +2183,13 @@ static void cpuset_attach(struct cgroup_taskset *tset) > > percpu_down_write(&cpuset_rwsem); > > - /* prepare for attach */ > - if (cs == &top_cpuset) > - cpumask_copy(cpus_attach, cpu_possible_mask); > - else > - guarantee_online_cpus(cs, cpus_attach); > - > guarantee_online_mems(cs, &cpuset_attach_nodemask_to); > > cgroup_taskset_for_each(task, css, tset) { > + if (cs != &top_cpuset) > + guarantee_online_cpus(task, cpus_attach); > + else > + cpumask_copy(cpus_attach, task_cpu_possible_mask(task)); > /* > * can_attach beforehand should guarantee that this doesn't > * fail. TODO: have a better way to handle failure here > @@ -3280,7 +3285,7 @@ void cpuset_cpus_allowed(struct task_struct *tsk, struct cpumask *pmask) > > spin_lock_irqsave(&callback_lock, flags); > rcu_read_lock(); > - guarantee_online_cpus(task_cs(tsk), pmask); > + guarantee_online_cpus(tsk, pmask); > rcu_read_unlock(); > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&callback_lock, flags); > } > -- > 2.29.2.576.ga3fc446d84-goog > _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel