Re: [PATCH v2] sched: Store restrict_cpus_allowed_ptr() call state

[Waiman Long]

On 1/26/23 15:49, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 1/26/23 11:11, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 03:24:36PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> > > On 1/24/23 14:48, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 09:17:49PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> > > > > The user_cpus_ptr field was originally added by commit b90ca8badbd1
> > > > > ("sched: Introduce task_struct::user_cpus_ptr to track requested
> > > > > affinity"). It was used only by arm64 arch due to possible asymmetric
> > > > > CPU setup.
> > > > >
> > > > > Since commit 8f9ea86fdf99 ("sched: Always preserve the user requested
> > > > > cpumask"), task_struct::user_cpus_ptr is repurposed to store user
> > > > > requested cpu affinity specified in the sched_setaffinity().
> > > > >
> > > > > This results in a performance regression in an arm64 system when 
> > > > > booted
> > > > > with "allow_mismatched_32bit_el0" on the command-line. The arch 
> > > > > code will
> > > > > (amongst other things) calls force_compatible_cpus_allowed_ptr() and
> > > > > relax_compatible_cpus_allowed_ptr() when exec()'ing a 32-bit or a 
> > > > > 64-bit
> > > > > task respectively. Now a call to relax_compatible_cpus_allowed_ptr()
> > > > > will always result in a __sched_setaffinity() call whether there is a
> > > > > previous force_compatible_cpus_allowed_ptr() call or not.
> > > > I'd argue it's more than just a performance regression -- the affinity
> > > > masks are set incorrectly, which is a user visible thing
> > > > (i.e. sched_getaffinity() gives unexpected values).
> > > Can your elaborate a bit more on what you mean by getting unexpected
> > > sched_getaffinity() results? You mean the result is wrong after a
> > > relax_compatible_cpus_allowed_ptr(). Right?
> > Yes, as in the original report. If, on a 4-CPU system, I do the 
> > following
> > with v6.1 and "allow_mismatched_32bit_el0" on the kernel cmdline:
> >
> > # for c in `seq 1 3`; do echo 0 > 
> > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu$c/online; done
> > # yes > /dev/null &
> > [1] 334
> > # taskset -p 334
> > pid 334's current affinity mask: 1
> > # for c in `seq 1 3`; do echo 1 > 
> > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu$c/online; done
> > # taskset -p 334
> > pid 334's current affinity mask: f
> >
> > but with v6.2-rc5 that last taskset invocation gives:
> >
> > pid 334's current affinity mask: 1
> >
> > so, yes, the performance definitely regresses, but that's because the
> > affinity mask is wrong!
>
> I see what you mean now. Hotplug doesn't work quite well now because 
> user_cpus_ptr has been repurposed to store the value set of 
> sched_setaffinity() but not the previous cpus_mask before 
> force_compatible_cpus_allowed_ptr().
>
> One possible solution is to modify the hotplug related code to check 
> for the cpus_allowed_restricted, and if set, check 
> task_cpu_possible_mask() to see if the cpu can be added back to its 
> cpus_mask. I will take a further look at that later.

Wait, I think the cpuset hotplug code should be able to restore the 
right cpumask since task_cpu_possible_mask() is used there. Is cpuset 
enabled? Does the test works without allow_mismatched_32bit_el0?

I think there may be a bug somewhere.

Cheers,
Longman