lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Nov]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 11/14] sched: Reject CPU affinity changes based on arch_cpu_allowed_mask()
On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 02:30:12PM +0000, Quentin Perret wrote:
> On Thursday 19 Nov 2020 at 11:07:24 (+0000), Will Deacon wrote:
> > Yeah, the cpuset code ignores the return value of set_cpus_allowed_ptr() in
> > update_tasks_cpumask() so the failure won't be propagated, but then again I
> > think that might be the right thing to do. Nothing prevents 32-bit and
> > 64-bit tasks from co-existing in the same cpuseti afaict, so forcing the
> > 64-bit tasks onto the 32-bit-capable cores feels much worse than the
> > approach taken here imo.
>
> Ack. And thinking about it more, failing the cgroup operation wouldn't
> guarantee that the task's affinity and the cpuset are aligned anyway. We
> could still exec into a 32 bit task from within a 64 bit-only cpuset.
>
> > The interesting case is what happens if the cpuset for a 32-bit task is
> > changed to contain only the 64-bit-only cores. I think that's a userspace
> > bug
>
> Maybe, but I think Android will do exactly that in some cases :/
>
> > but the fallback rq selection should avert disaster.
>
> I thought _this_ patch was 'fixing' this case by making the cpuset
> operation pretty much a nop on the task affinity? The fallback rq stuff
> is all about hotplug no?

Yeah, sorry, I wasn't clear. This patch postpones disaster until hotplug
off time, when cpuset_cpus_allowed_fallback() will fail and
select_fallback_rq() will have to step in.

Will

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-11-19 17:45    [W:0.610 / U:0.116 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site