From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 576CBC47082 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 2021 09:52:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 373BA613F1 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 2021 09:52:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229864AbhFCJx6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Jun 2021 05:53:58 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:35796 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229665AbhFCJx6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Jun 2021 05:53:58 -0400 Received: by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EABEF613DA; Thu, 3 Jun 2021 09:52:10 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1622713934; bh=jAEXIZ/nUnfkivzRkb18fUwoN/7URkHoNnzScjR6ylQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=s1epUq1UQCB6cSC7WqV7EaQ+gqzdTfG6a1gl+PxZV0B0SyPhJ9uyKtSRJPW511eMq AAXBSSeqPzKoUDBfDSeBeXvuggg+NnERdHUHMIh7mbdu+fCsBbWmnAEVu6yceLGNt0 g6zjCzj3r2rroc81bX9vy6KUygqYDe2HVwz/rtyoAsj4QIgfgH7KtLUMgp6DH7cOdE eagIp9pz1DoWX/Vp3+Q8jREkWbHrNuU/OuugrI4RMuGKcP3cC1c8unDU7YPLY27Pf/ MuyLjsDvn48PfjeNAnpxjfm2nmwDnzAxq/5tY+F+kT403DRUILI9aOzwzjWJWhIRpk b4XB7Q9I5WArA== Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2021 10:52:07 +0100 From: Will Deacon To: Daniel Bristot de Oliveira Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Catalin Marinas , Marc Zyngier , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Peter Zijlstra , Morten Rasmussen , Qais Yousef , Suren Baghdasaryan , Quentin Perret , Tejun Heo , Johannes Weiner , Ingo Molnar , Juri Lelli , Vincent Guittot , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Dietmar Eggemann , Valentin Schneider , kernel-team@android.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 12/19] sched: Introduce task_cpus_dl_admissible() to check proposed affinity Message-ID: <20210603095207.GA32641@willie-the-truck> References: <20210602164719.31777-1-will@kernel.org> <20210602164719.31777-13-will@kernel.org> <5ab65165-49e6-633f-d4a5-9538fb72cc36@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5ab65165-49e6-633f-d4a5-9538fb72cc36@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jun 03, 2021 at 11:43:08AM +0200, Daniel Bristot de Oliveira wrote: > On 6/2/21 6:47 PM, Will Deacon wrote: > > In preparation for restricting the affinity of a task during execve() > > on arm64, introduce a new task_cpus_dl_admissible() helper function to > > give an indication as to whether the restricted mask is admissible for > > a deadline task. > > > > Signed-off-by: Will Deacon > > --- > > include/linux/sched.h | 6 ++++++ > > kernel/sched/core.c | 44 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------- > > 2 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h > > index 91a6cfeae242..9b17d8cfa6ef 100644 > > --- a/include/linux/sched.h > > +++ b/include/linux/sched.h > > @@ -1691,6 +1691,7 @@ extern void do_set_cpus_allowed(struct task_struct *p, const struct cpumask *new > > extern int set_cpus_allowed_ptr(struct task_struct *p, const struct cpumask *new_mask); > > extern int dup_user_cpus_ptr(struct task_struct *dst, struct task_struct *src, int node); > > extern void release_user_cpus_ptr(struct task_struct *p); > > +extern bool task_cpus_dl_admissible(struct task_struct *p, const struct cpumask *mask); > > extern void force_compatible_cpus_allowed_ptr(struct task_struct *p); > > extern void relax_compatible_cpus_allowed_ptr(struct task_struct *p); > > #else > > @@ -1713,6 +1714,11 @@ static inline void release_user_cpus_ptr(struct task_struct *p) > > { > > WARN_ON(p->user_cpus_ptr); > > } > > + > > +static inline bool task_cpus_dl_admissible(struct task_struct *p, const struct cpumask *mask) > > +{ > > + return true; > > +} > > #endif > > > > extern int yield_to(struct task_struct *p, bool preempt); > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c > > index 58e2cf7520c0..b4f8dc18ae11 100644 > > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c > > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c > > @@ -6933,6 +6933,31 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE4(sched_getattr, pid_t, pid, struct sched_attr __user *, uattr, > > return retval; > > } > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP > > +bool task_cpus_dl_admissible(struct task_struct *p, const struct cpumask *mask) > > Would you mind renaming it to dl_task_check_affinity(), in the case of a v9? It > will look coherent with dl_task_can_attach()... Of course! I struggled with the naming myself, and your suggestion is much better. > Reviewed-by: Daniel Bristot de Oliveira Cheers! Will