From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] sched: Use user_cpus_ptr for saving user provided cpumask in sched_setaffinity() Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2022 10:57:15 +0200 Message-ID: References: <20220812203929.364341-1-longman@redhat.com> <20220812203929.364341-2-longman@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=casper.20170209; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version: References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=xGKSHpBSrA7bGy9HtaNlBZ6jRySHti4Z3/bSYrzElsk=; b=QfHLyNs2Gnm/SW58wQjhG43d4m YtpYmGgwiw73SbX4veuzmapH8DV7A/3SrrNvsYp3sGIWUlJb/GP8afoCxYTKA8DXbu7hVeQfKLnoj hBGXrJ+L7xHjybZuRnrduifHmMhYTDTmUPCKl/ByqVv5VVd9DQjBWn4HSMHudfi3VHRWBDun+CmdG YseHXJ4cDfrGck+Tz1Xv31Hzsoxozc4iUOksmCJ48lksoc5+64RuVPVOrKYbfT/5187aWI1iYF0h7 rE6WodEhc+cSnV2XVz60fOqJXKONiC/HUZKoCktmpIMC0uNKek0Zqa3X8x+cyycjXHnt/oySgeHPC SRLQGj6A==; Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20220812203929.364341-2-longman-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Waiman Long Cc: Ingo Molnar , Juri Lelli , Vincent Guittot , Dietmar Eggemann , Steven Rostedt , Ben Segall , Mel Gorman , Daniel Bristot de Oliveira , Valentin Schneider , Tejun Heo , Zefan Li , Johannes Weiner , Will Deacon , cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Linus Torvalds On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 04:39:27PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > The user_cpus_ptr field is added by commit b90ca8badbd1 ("sched: > Introduce task_struct::user_cpus_ptr to track requested affinity"). It > is currently used only by arm64 arch due to possible asymmetric cpu > setup. This patch extends its usage to save user provided cpumask when > sched_setaffinity() is called for all arches. > > To preserve the existing arm64 use case, a new cpus_affinity_set flag is > added to differentiate if user_cpus_ptr is set up by sched_setaffinity() > or by force_compatible_cpus_allowed_ptr(). user_cpus_ptr > set by sched_setaffinity() has priority and won't be > overwritten by force_compatible_cpus_allowed_ptr() or > relax_compatible_cpus_allowed_ptr(). What why ?! The only possible case where restrict_cpus_allowed_ptr() will now need that weird new state is when the affinity has never been set before, in that case cpus_ptr should be possible_mask. Please just make a single consistent rule and don't make weird corner cases like this.