Re: [PATCH v8 11/19] sched: Allow task CPU affinity to be restricted on asymmetric systems
flat view
From: Valentin Schneider <hidden>
Date: 2021-06-04 17:12:39
Also in:
linux-arch, lkml
On 02/06/21 17:47, Will Deacon wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
+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?
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
+ 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 (local) but then again this isn't merged yet :-)
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
+ 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. _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel