lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Dec]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 08/14] arm64: exec: Adjust affinity for compat tasks with mismatched 32-bit EL0
On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 01:23:06PM +0000, Qais Yousef wrote:
> On 11/24/20 15:50, Will Deacon wrote:
> > When exec'ing a 32-bit task on a system with mismatched support for
> > 32-bit EL0, try to ensure that it starts life on a CPU that can actually
> > run it.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
> > ---
> > arch/arm64/kernel/process.c | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > 1 file changed, 41 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c
> > index 1540ab0fbf23..72116b0c7c73 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/process.c
> > @@ -31,6 +31,7 @@
> > #include <linux/interrupt.h>
> > #include <linux/init.h>
> > #include <linux/cpu.h>
> > +#include <linux/cpuset.h>
> > #include <linux/elfcore.h>
> > #include <linux/pm.h>
> > #include <linux/tick.h>
> > @@ -625,6 +626,45 @@ unsigned long arch_align_stack(unsigned long sp)
> > return sp & ~0xf;
> > }
> >
> > +static void adjust_compat_task_affinity(struct task_struct *p)
> > +{
> > + cpumask_var_t cpuset_mask;
> > + const struct cpumask *possible_mask = system_32bit_el0_cpumask();
> > + const struct cpumask *newmask = possible_mask;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Restrict the CPU affinity mask for a 32-bit task so that it contains
> > + * only the 32-bit-capable subset of its original CPU mask. If this is
> > + * empty, then try again with the cpuset allowed mask. If that fails,
> > + * forcefully override it with the set of all 32-bit-capable CPUs that
> > + * we know about.
> > + *
> > + * From the perspective of the task, this looks similar to what would
> > + * happen if the 64-bit-only CPUs were hot-unplugged at the point of
> > + * execve().
> > + */
> > + if (!restrict_cpus_allowed_ptr(p, possible_mask))
> > + goto out;
> > +
> > + if (alloc_cpumask_var(&cpuset_mask, GFP_KERNEL)) {
> > + cpuset_cpus_allowed(p, cpuset_mask);
> > + if (cpumask_and(cpuset_mask, cpuset_mask, possible_mask)) {
> > + newmask = cpuset_mask;
> > + goto out_set_mask;
> > + }
> > + }
>
> Wouldn't it be better to move this logic to restrict_cpus_allowed_ptr()?
> I think it should always take cpusets into account and it's not special to
> this particular handling here, no?

I did actually try this but didn't pursue it further because I was worried
that I was putting too much of the "can't run a 32-bit task on a 64-bit-only
CPU" logic into what would otherwise be a potentially useful library function
if/when other architectures want something similar. But I'll have another
look because there were a couple of ideas I didn't try out.

> > + if (printk_ratelimit()) {
> > + printk_deferred("Overriding affinity for 32-bit process %d (%s) to CPUs %*pbl\n",
> > + task_pid_nr(p), p->comm, cpumask_pr_args(newmask));
> > + }
>
> We have 2 cases where the affinity could have been overridden but we won't
> print anything:
>
> 1. restrict_cpus_allowed_ptr()
> 2. intersection of cpuset_mask and possible mask drops some cpus.
>
> Shouldn't we print something in these cases too?

I don't think so: in these cases we've found a subset of CPUs that we can
run on, and so there's no need to warn. Nothing says we _have_ to use all
the CPUs available to us. The case where we override the affinity mask
altogether, however, does warrant a warning. This is very similar to the
hotplug behaviour in select_fallback_rq().

Will

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-12-01 17:57    [W:0.137 / U:1.092 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site