From: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>
To: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Will Deacon <will@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>,
Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
kernel-team@android.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 11/19] sched: Allow task CPU affinity to be restricted on asymmetric systems
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2021 18:12:32 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87zgw5d05b.mognet@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210602164719.31777-12-will@kernel.org>
On 02/06/21 17:47, Will Deacon wrote:
> +static int restrict_cpus_allowed_ptr(struct task_struct *p,
> + struct cpumask *new_mask,
> + const struct cpumask *subset_mask)
> +{
> + struct rq_flags rf;
> + struct rq *rq;
> + int err;
> + struct cpumask *user_mask = NULL;
> +
> + if (!p->user_cpus_ptr) {
> + user_mask = kmalloc(cpumask_size(), GFP_KERNEL);
> +
> + if (!user_mask)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> + }
> +
> + rq = task_rq_lock(p, &rf);
> +
> + /*
> + * Forcefully restricting the affinity of a deadline task is
> + * likely to cause problems, so fail and noisily override the
> + * mask entirely.
> + */
> + if (task_has_dl_policy(p) && dl_bandwidth_enabled()) {
> + err = -EPERM;
> + goto err_unlock;
> + }
> +
> + if (!cpumask_and(new_mask, &p->cpus_mask, subset_mask)) {
> + err = -EINVAL;
> + goto err_unlock;
> + }
> +
> + /*
> + * We're about to butcher the task affinity, so keep track of what
> + * the user asked for in case we're able to restore it later on.
> + */
> + if (user_mask) {
> + cpumask_copy(user_mask, p->cpus_ptr);
> + p->user_cpus_ptr = user_mask;
> + }
> +
Shouldn't that be done before any of the bailouts above, so we can
potentially restore the mask even if we end up forcefully expanding the
affinity?
> + return __set_cpus_allowed_ptr_locked(p, new_mask, 0, rq, &rf);
> +
> +err_unlock:
> + task_rq_unlock(rq, p, &rf);
> + kfree(user_mask);
> + return err;
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * Restrict the CPU affinity of task @p so that it is a subset of
> + * task_cpu_possible_mask() and point @p->user_cpu_ptr to a copy of the
> + * old affinity mask. If the resulting mask is empty, we warn and walk
> + * up the cpuset hierarchy until we find a suitable mask.
> + */
> +void force_compatible_cpus_allowed_ptr(struct task_struct *p)
> +{
> + cpumask_var_t new_mask;
> + const struct cpumask *override_mask = task_cpu_possible_mask(p);
> +
> + alloc_cpumask_var(&new_mask, GFP_KERNEL);
> +
> + /*
> + * __migrate_task() can fail silently in the face of concurrent
> + * offlining of the chosen destination CPU, so take the hotplug
> + * lock to ensure that the migration succeeds.
> + */
> + cpus_read_lock();
I'm thinking this might not be required with:
http://lore.kernel.org/r/20210526205751.842360-3-valentin.schneider@arm.com
but then again this isn't merged yet :-)
> + if (!cpumask_available(new_mask))
> + goto out_set_mask;
> +
> + if (!restrict_cpus_allowed_ptr(p, new_mask, override_mask))
> + goto out_free_mask;
> +
> + /*
> + * We failed to find a valid subset of the affinity mask for the
> + * task, so override it based on its cpuset hierarchy.
> + */
> + cpuset_cpus_allowed(p, new_mask);
> + override_mask = new_mask;
> +
> +out_set_mask:
> + if (printk_ratelimit()) {
> + printk_deferred("Overriding affinity for process %d (%s) to CPUs %*pbl\n",
> + task_pid_nr(p), p->comm,
> + cpumask_pr_args(override_mask));
> + }
> +
> + WARN_ON(set_cpus_allowed_ptr(p, override_mask));
> +out_free_mask:
> + cpus_read_unlock();
> + free_cpumask_var(new_mask);
> +}
> +
> +static int
> +__sched_setaffinity(struct task_struct *p, const struct cpumask *mask);
> +
> +/*
> + * Restore the affinity of a task @p which was previously restricted by a
> + * call to force_compatible_cpus_allowed_ptr(). This will clear (and free)
> + * @p->user_cpus_ptr.
> + */
> +void relax_compatible_cpus_allowed_ptr(struct task_struct *p)
> +{
> + unsigned long flags;
> + struct cpumask *mask = p->user_cpus_ptr;
> +
> + /*
> + * Try to restore the old affinity mask. If this fails, then
> + * we free the mask explicitly to avoid it being inherited across
> + * a subsequent fork().
> + */
> + if (!mask || !__sched_setaffinity(p, mask))
> + return;
> +
> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&p->pi_lock, flags);
> + release_user_cpus_ptr(p);
> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&p->pi_lock, flags);
AFAICT an affinity change can happen between __sched_setaffinity() and
reacquiring the ->pi_lock. Right now this can't be another
force_compatible_cpus_allowed_ptr() because this is only driven by
arch_setup_new_exec() against current, so we should be fine, but here be
dragons.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-06-04 17:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 48+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-06-02 16:47 [PATCH v8 00/19] Add support for 32-bit tasks on asymmetric AArch32 systems Will Deacon
2021-06-02 16:47 ` [PATCH v8 01/19] arm64: cpuinfo: Split AArch32 registers out into a separate struct Will Deacon
2021-06-03 12:38 ` Mark Rutland
2021-06-03 17:24 ` Will Deacon
2021-06-02 16:47 ` [PATCH v8 02/19] arm64: Allow mismatched 32-bit EL0 support Will Deacon
2021-06-03 12:37 ` Mark Rutland
2021-06-03 17:44 ` Will Deacon
2021-06-04 9:38 ` Mark Rutland
2021-06-04 11:05 ` Will Deacon
2021-06-04 12:04 ` Mark Rutland
2021-06-04 13:50 ` Will Deacon
2021-06-02 16:47 ` [PATCH v8 03/19] KVM: arm64: Kill 32-bit vCPUs on systems with mismatched " Will Deacon
2021-06-02 16:47 ` [PATCH v8 04/19] arm64: Kill 32-bit applications scheduled on 64-bit-only CPUs Will Deacon
2021-06-02 16:47 ` [PATCH v8 05/19] sched: Introduce task_cpu_possible_mask() to limit fallback rq selection Will Deacon
2021-06-04 17:10 ` Valentin Schneider
2021-06-07 17:04 ` Will Deacon
2021-06-02 16:47 ` [PATCH v8 06/19] cpuset: Don't use the cpu_possible_mask as a last resort for cgroup v1 Will Deacon
2021-06-04 17:11 ` Valentin Schneider
2021-06-07 17:20 ` Will Deacon
2021-06-10 10:20 ` Valentin Schneider
2021-06-02 16:47 ` [PATCH v8 07/19] cpuset: Honour task_cpu_possible_mask() in guarantee_online_cpus() Will Deacon
2021-06-04 17:11 ` Valentin Schneider
2021-06-02 16:47 ` [PATCH v8 08/19] sched: Reject CPU affinity changes based on task_cpu_possible_mask() Will Deacon
2021-06-04 17:11 ` Valentin Schneider
2021-06-07 22:43 ` Will Deacon
2021-06-02 16:47 ` [PATCH v8 09/19] sched: Introduce task_struct::user_cpus_ptr to track requested affinity Will Deacon
2021-06-04 17:12 ` Valentin Schneider
2021-06-02 16:47 ` [PATCH v8 10/19] sched: Split the guts of sched_setaffinity() into a helper function Will Deacon
2021-06-04 17:12 ` Valentin Schneider
2021-06-02 16:47 ` [PATCH v8 11/19] sched: Allow task CPU affinity to be restricted on asymmetric systems Will Deacon
2021-06-04 17:12 ` Valentin Schneider [this message]
2021-06-07 22:52 ` Will Deacon
2021-06-10 10:20 ` Valentin Schneider
2021-06-02 16:47 ` [PATCH v8 12/19] sched: Introduce task_cpus_dl_admissible() to check proposed affinity Will Deacon
2021-06-03 9:43 ` Daniel Bristot de Oliveira
2021-06-03 9:52 ` Will Deacon
2021-06-02 16:47 ` [PATCH v8 13/19] arm64: Implement task_cpu_possible_mask() Will Deacon
2021-06-02 16:47 ` [PATCH v8 14/19] arm64: exec: Adjust affinity for compat tasks with mismatched 32-bit EL0 Will Deacon
2021-06-03 9:45 ` Daniel Bristot de Oliveira
2021-06-02 16:47 ` [PATCH v8 15/19] arm64: Prevent offlining first CPU with 32-bit EL0 on mismatched system Will Deacon
2021-06-03 12:58 ` Mark Rutland
2021-06-03 17:40 ` Will Deacon
2021-06-04 9:49 ` Mark Rutland
2021-06-04 12:14 ` Qais Yousef
2021-06-02 16:47 ` [PATCH v8 16/19] arm64: Advertise CPUs capable of running 32-bit applications in sysfs Will Deacon
2021-06-02 16:47 ` [PATCH v8 17/19] arm64: Hook up cmdline parameter to allow mismatched 32-bit EL0 Will Deacon
2021-06-02 16:47 ` [PATCH v8 18/19] arm64: Remove logic to kill 32-bit tasks on 64-bit-only cores Will Deacon
2021-06-02 16:47 ` [PATCH v8 19/19] Documentation: arm64: describe asymmetric 32-bit support 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=87zgw5d05b.mognet@arm.com \
--to=valentin.schneider@arm.com \
--cc=bristot@redhat.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@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=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=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=surenb@google.com \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=will@kernel.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: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).