Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 1 Apr 2020 20:50:03 -0400 | From | Peter Xu <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] sched/isolation: Allow "isolcpus=" to skip unknown sub-parameters |
| |
On Thu, Apr 02, 2020 at 01:29:14AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com> writes: > > > On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 10:30:08PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > >> Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com> writes: > >> > @@ -169,8 +169,12 @@ static int __init housekeeping_isolcpus_setup(char *str) > >> > continue; > >> > } > >> > > >> > - pr_warn("isolcpus: Error, unknown flag\n"); > >> > - return 0; > >> > + str = strchr(str, ','); > >> > + if (str) > >> > + /* Skip unknown sub-parameter */ > >> > + str++; > >> > + else > >> > + return 0; > >> > >> Just looked at it again because I wanted to apply this and contrary to > >> last time I figured out that this is broken: > >> > >> isolcpus=nohz,domain1,3,5 > >> > >> is a malformatted option, but the above will make it "valid" and result > >> in: > >> > >> HK_FLAG_TICK and a cpumask of 3,5. > > > > I would think this is no worse than applying nothing - I read the > > first "isalpha()" check as something like "the subparameter's first > > character must not be a digit", so to differenciate with the cpu list. > > If we keep this, we can still have subparams like "double-word". > > It _is_ worse. If the intention is to write 'nohz,domain,1,3,5' and > that missing comma morphs it silently into 'nohz,3,5' then this is > really a step backwards. The upstream version would tell you that you > screwed up. > > >> static int __init housekeeping_isolcpus_setup(char *str) > >> { > >> unsigned int flags = 0; > >> + char *par; > >> + int len; > >> > >> while (isalpha(*str)) { > >> if (!strncmp(str, "nohz,", 5)) { > >> @@ -169,8 +171,17 @@ static int __init housekeeping_isolcpus_ > >> continue; > >> } > >> > >> - pr_warn("isolcpus: Error, unknown flag\n"); > >> - return 0; > >> + /* > >> + * Skip unknown sub-parameter and validate that it is not > >> + * containing an invalid character. > >> + */ > >> + for (par = str, len = 0; isalpha(*str); str++, len++); > >> + if (*str != ',') { > >> + pr_warn("isolcpus: Invalid flag %*s\n", len, par); > > > > ... this will dump "isolcpus: Invalid flag domain1,3,5", is this what > > we wanted? Maybe only dumps "domain1"? > > No, it will dump: "domain1" at least if my understanding of is_alpha() > and the '%*s' format option is halfways correct
It will dump "isolcpus: Invalid flag domain1,3,5". Do you mean "%.*s" instead?
Another issue is even if to use "%.*s" it'll only dump "domain". How about something like (declare "illegal" as bool):
/* * Skip unknown sub-parameter and validate that it is not * containing an invalid character. */ for (par = str, len = 0; *str && *str != ','; str++, len++) if (!isalpha(*str)) illegal = true;
if (illegal) { pr_warn("isolcpus: Invalid flag %.*s\n", len, par); return 0; }
pr_info("isolcpus: Skipped unknown flag %.*s\n", len, par); str++;
> > > For me so far I would still prefer the original one, giving more > > freedom to the future params and the patch is also a bit easier (but I > > Again. It does not matter whether the patch is easier or not. What > matters is correctness and usability. Silently converting a typo into > something else is horrible at best.
Frankly speaking I really see it as simple as "we define a rule to write these parameters, and people follow"... But I won't argue more.
If you see above clip looks good, I can repost with a formal patch.
Thanks,
> > > definitely like the pr_warn when there's unknown subparams). But just > > let me know your preference and I'll follow yours when repost. > > Enforcing a pure 'is_alpha()' subparam space is not really a substantial > restriction. Feel free to extend it by adding '|| *str == '_' if you > really think that provides a value. > > Thanks, > > tglx >
-- Peter Xu
| |