From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Zefan Li <lizefan.x@bytedance.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
kernel-team@android.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cgroup/cpuset: Don't filter offline CPUs in cpuset_cpus_allowed() for top cpuset tasks
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2023 11:01:22 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y94s8mzrE9VyUJLa@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230203164040.213437-1-longman@redhat.com>
On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 11:40:40AM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> Since commit 8f9ea86fdf99 ("sched: Always preserve the user
> requested cpumask"), relax_compatible_cpus_allowed_ptr() is calling
> __sched_setaffinity() unconditionally. This helps to expose a bug in
> the current cpuset hotplug code where the cpumasks of the tasks in
> the top cpuset are not updated at all when some CPUs become online or
> offline. It is likely caused by the fact that some of the tasks in the
> top cpuset, like percpu kthreads, cannot have their cpu affinity changed.
>
> One way to reproduce this as suggested by Peter is:
> - boot machine
> - offline all CPUs except one
> - taskset -p ffffffff $$
> - online all CPUs
>
> Fix this by allowing cpuset_cpus_allowed() to return a wider mask that
> includes offline CPUs for those tasks that are in the top cpuset. For
> tasks not in the top cpuset, the old rule applies and only online CPUs
> will be returned in the mask since hotplug events will update their
> cpumasks accordingly.
So you get the task_cpu_possible_mask() interaction vs cpusets horribly
wrong here, but given the very sorry state of task_cpu_possible_mask()
correctness of cpuset as a whole that might just not matter at this
point.
I do very much hate how you add exceptions on exceptions instead of
looking to do something right :-(
Fixing that parition case in my patch is 1 extra line and then I think
it fundamentally does the right thing and can serve as a basis for
fixing cpuset as a whole.
> Fixes: 8f9ea86fdf99 ("sched: Always preserve the user requested cpumask")
> Reported-by: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
> Originally-from: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
> Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
> ---
> kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c b/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c
> index 207bafdb05e8..11554e5845f7 100644
> --- a/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c
> +++ b/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c
> @@ -3707,15 +3707,38 @@ void __init cpuset_init_smp(void)
> * Description: Returns the cpumask_var_t cpus_allowed of the cpuset
> * attached to the specified @tsk. Guaranteed to return some non-empty
> * subset of cpu_online_mask, even if this means going outside the
> - * tasks cpuset.
> + * tasks cpuset, except when the task is in the top cpuset.
> **/
>
> void cpuset_cpus_allowed(struct task_struct *tsk, struct cpumask *pmask)
> {
> unsigned long flags;
> + struct cpuset *cs;
>
> spin_lock_irqsave(&callback_lock, flags);
> - guarantee_online_cpus(tsk, pmask);
> + rcu_read_lock();
> +
> + cs = task_cs(tsk);
> + if (cs != &top_cpuset)
> + guarantee_online_cpus(tsk, pmask);
> + /*
> + * TODO: Tasks in the top cpuset won't get update to their cpumasks
> + * when a hotplug online/offline event happens. So we include all
> + * offline cpus in the allowed cpu list.
> + */
I don't like TODO there, I really don't think CPUSET should update root
tasks, that means yet another fundamental difference between
CPUSET={y,n}.
> + if ((cs == &top_cpuset) || cpumask_empty(pmask)) {
> + const struct cpumask *possible_mask = task_cpu_possible_mask(tsk);
> +
> + /*
> + * We first exclude cpus allocated to partitions. If there is no
> + * allowable online cpu left, we fall back to all possible cpus.
> + */
> + cpumask_andnot(pmask, possible_mask, top_cpuset.subparts_cpus);
> + if (!cpumask_intersects(pmask, cpu_online_mask))
> + cpumask_copy(pmask, possible_mask);
> + }
> +
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&callback_lock, flags);
> }
I really detest this patch, but if you insist it might just do :-/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-02-04 10:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-02-03 16:40 [PATCH] cgroup/cpuset: Don't filter offline CPUs in cpuset_cpus_allowed() for top cpuset tasks Waiman Long
2023-02-03 21:00 ` Tejun Heo
2023-02-03 22:26 ` Waiman Long
2023-02-04 13:32 ` Will Deacon
2023-02-04 10:01 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2023-02-05 5:00 ` Waiman Long
2023-02-06 11:05 ` Will Deacon
2023-02-06 20:17 ` Tejun Heo
2023-02-07 11:32 ` Will Deacon
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Y94s8mzrE9VyUJLa@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=kernel-team@android.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lizefan.x@bytedance.com \
--cc=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox