From: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
To: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
LKML <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>,
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 <kernel-team@android.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 08/15] cpuset: Honour task_cpu_possible_mask() in guarantee_online_cpus()
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2020 19:54:04 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJuCfpGdG4Wmrb-pVPTFuqWkfMKTkhL0f-_Dv6M-0M7VDnW5Bw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201208132835.6151-9-will@kernel.org>
On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 5:29 AM Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> 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 <lizefan@huawei.com>
> Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
> Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
> ---
> 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 <linux/cpumask.h>
> #include <linux/nodemask.h>
> #include <linux/mm.h>
> +#include <linux/mmu_context.h>
> #include <linux/jump_label.h>
>
> #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
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-12-28 3:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ 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 ` [PATCH v5 01/15] arm64: cpuinfo: Split AArch32 registers out into a separate struct 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 ` [PATCH v5 03/15] KVM: arm64: Kill 32-bit vCPUs on systems with mismatched " 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 ` [PATCH v5 05/15] arm64: Advertise CPUs capable of running 32-bit applications in sysfs 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 ` [PATCH v5 07/15] cpuset: Don't use the cpu_possible_mask as a last resort for cgroup v1 Will Deacon
2020-12-17 12:15 ` Qais Yousef
2020-12-17 13:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-12-17 14:59 ` Will Deacon
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
2020-12-28 3:54 ` Suren Baghdasaryan [this message]
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 ` [PATCH v5 10/15] sched: Introduce force_compatible_cpus_allowed_ptr() to limit CPU affinity Will Deacon
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 ` [PATCH v5 12/15] arm64: exec: Adjust affinity for compat tasks with mismatched 32-bit EL0 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 ` [PATCH v5 14/15] arm64: Hook up cmdline parameter to allow mismatched 32-bit EL0 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
2020-12-15 17:36 ` [PATCH v5 00/15] An alternative series for asymmetric AArch32 systems Peter Zijlstra
2020-12-15 18:50 ` Will Deacon
2020-12-17 10:55 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-12-16 11:16 ` Qais Yousef
2020-12-16 14:14 ` Will Deacon
2020-12-16 16:48 ` Qais Yousef
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=CAJuCfpGdG4Wmrb-pVPTFuqWkfMKTkhL0f-_Dv6M-0M7VDnW5Bw@mail.gmail.com \
--to=surenb@google.com \
--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=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).