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=-10.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,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 44D69C63697 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 13:14:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from merlin.infradead.org (merlin.infradead.org [205.233.59.134]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BFEC0208D5 for ; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 13:14:32 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lists.infradead.org header.i=@lists.infradead.org header.b="LuMy4fbs"; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="0SFglOT5" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org BFEC0208D5 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=merlin.20170209; h=Sender:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:Cc:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post:List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID: Subject:To:From:Date:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=Zkfs6TtIElJLIcmZ0ZTjKESzZwtHGgnGgDkfd54xv8A=; b=LuMy4fbsN27qSox9XmPGWRUY9 /7V5FKb98PsfnzhTw1XWmRY/BuDcKuBGDke/Bg1b5tiv77OsmMXDPQG5XXbjHvAiXR/6vWZbi343x 3ai0oDqdkgRu7HTnaAf+QDWO6Dx4b7o8+N9U+nWA7W46iF682a3yg34E5zSNHCiLSlvzS9sTrpDAZ QR6QBbBf+5klz2Nl0DfAp1dygjxbG/SzzO933HVdWomBg6u4l9lUbexd85FljE94N6SuA1Kw+IwPq OfNWNh6qJ6tUqGDc31L1laC4GhXGwcf3y3pYlio3TkPuFVahv0BMJ5VTu6olM6zgGPVP1FmIdjVUh Qwg5MSZwQ==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=merlin.infradead.org) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1kfjkP-0005BO-TY; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 13:13:13 +0000 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1kfjkM-00059i-5Z for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 13:13:11 +0000 Received: from willie-the-truck (236.31.169.217.in-addr.arpa [217.169.31.236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E254E208D5; Thu, 19 Nov 2020 13:13:05 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1605791589; bh=TJ8b6OEHzQ0ZsijVy8i49yto5LykArD7whycPru1dfQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=0SFglOT5POOg+MPN2NEy+c5vRQY8lV/NX0WhBaJb07p0eXXoTyoebZDl6raTtp8yd rkPh/gQB+K6NtVsWWtNfGiBtYcQkHvRfrvP87yRcvv824VYjReJ6ll540CWUE/EYxG vWUQ5qzmd86rRcfdbV0vlowo9xV00aZMY+Z0rV9I= Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2020 13:13:02 +0000 From: Will Deacon To: Valentin Schneider Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 07/14] sched: Introduce restrict_cpus_allowed_ptr() to limit task CPU affinity Message-ID: <20201119131301.GD4331@willie-the-truck> References: <20201113093720.21106-1-will@kernel.org> <20201113093720.21106-8-will@kernel.org> <20201119091820.GA2416649@google.com> <20201119110549.GA3946@willie-the-truck> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20201119_081310_377954_C065EC48 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 22.83 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Juri Lelli , kernel-team@android.com, Vincent Guittot , Quentin Perret , Peter Zijlstra , Catalin Marinas , Johannes Weiner , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Qais Yousef , Ingo Molnar , Li Zefan , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Marc Zyngier , Tejun Heo , Suren Baghdasaryan , Morten Rasmussen , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 11:27:55AM +0000, Valentin Schneider wrote: > > On 19/11/20 11:05, Will Deacon wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 09:18:20AM +0000, Quentin Perret wrote: > >> > @@ -1937,20 +1931,69 @@ static int __set_cpus_allowed_ptr(struct task_struct *p, > >> > * OK, since we're going to drop the lock immediately > >> > * afterwards anyway. > >> > */ > >> > - rq = move_queued_task(rq, &rf, p, dest_cpu); > >> > + rq = move_queued_task(rq, rf, p, dest_cpu); > >> > } > >> > out: > >> > - task_rq_unlock(rq, p, &rf); > >> > + task_rq_unlock(rq, p, rf); > >> > >> And that's a little odd to have here no? Can we move it back on the > >> caller's side? > > > > I don't think so, unfortunately. __set_cpus_allowed_ptr_locked() can trigger > > migration, so it can drop the rq lock as part of that and end up relocking a > > new rq, which it also unlocks before returning. Doing the unlock in the > > caller is therfore even weirder, because you'd have to return the lock > > pointer or something horrible like that. > > > > I did add a comment about this right before the function and it's an > > internal function to the scheduler so I think it's ok. > > > > An alternative here would be to add a new SCA_RESTRICT flag for > __set_cpus_allowed_ptr() (see migrate_disable() faff in > tip/sched/core). Not fond of either approaches, but the flag thing would > avoid this "quirk". I tried this when I read about the migrate_disable() stuff on lwn, but I didn't really find it any better to work with tbh. It also doesn't help with the locking that Quentin was mentioning, does it? (i.e. you still have to allocate). Will _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel