Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 20 May 2021 14:38:08 +0200
From:   Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>
To:     Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>
Cc:     Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>,
        Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@arm.com>,
        Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>, kernel-team@android.com,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 13/21] sched: Admit forcefully-affined tasks into
 SCHED_DEADLINE
Message-ID: <YKZYMKg8PPkwzJXm@localhost.localdomain>
References: <20210518094725.7701-1-will@kernel.org>
 <20210518094725.7701-14-will@kernel.org>
 <YKOU9onXUxVLPGaB@google.com>
 <20210518102833.GA7770@willie-the-truck>
 <YKObZ1GcfVIVWRWt@google.com>
 <20210518105951.GC7770@willie-the-truck>
 <YKO+9lPLQLPm4Nwt@google.com>
 <YKYoQ0ezahSC/RAg@localhost.localdomain>
 <20210520101640.GA10065@willie-the-truck>
 <YKY7FvFeRlXVjcaA@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YKY7FvFeRlXVjcaA@google.com>
Precedence: bulk

On 20/05/21 10:33, Quentin Perret wrote:
> On Thursday 20 May 2021 at 11:16:41 (+0100), Will Deacon wrote:
> > Ok, thanks for the insight. In which case, I'll go with what we discussed:
> > require admission control to be disabled for sched_setattr() but allow
> > execve() to a 32-bit task from a 64-bit deadline task with a warning (this
> > is probably similar to CPU hotplug?).
> 
> Still not sure that we can let execve go through ... It will break AC
> all the same, so it should probably fail as well if AC is on IMO
> 

Yeah, this was my thinking as well.