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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 13/21] sched: Admit forcefully-affined tasks into
 SCHED_DEADLINE
To:     Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Cc:     Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        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
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>
 <f9d1a138-3150-d404-7cd5-ddf72e93837b@redhat.com>
 <0dbdfe1e-dede-d33d-ca89-768a1fa3c907@arm.com>
From:   Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <eff0f358-d5f3-47c7-539b-527814093f89@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 20 May 2021 18:00:29 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.10.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <0dbdfe1e-dede-d33d-ca89-768a1fa3c907@arm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 5/20/21 5:06 PM, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> On 20/05/2021 14:38, Daniel Bristot de Oliveira wrote:
>> On 5/20/21 12:33 PM, 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
>>>
>>
>> If the cpumask of the 32-bit task is != of the 64-bit task that is executing it,
>> the admission control needs to be re-executed, and it could fail. So I see this
>> operation equivalent to sched_setaffinity(). This will likely be true for future
>> schedulers that will allow arbitrary affinities (AC should run on affinity
>> change, and could fail).
>>
>> I would vote with Juri: "I'd go with fail hard if AC is on, let it
>> pass if AC is off (supposedly the user knows what to do)," (also hope nobody
>> complains until we add better support for affinity, and use this as a motivation
>> to get back on this front).
>>
>> -- Daniel
> 
> (1) # chrt -d -T 5000000 -P 16666666 0 ./32bit_app
> 
> (2) # ./32bit_app &
> 
>     # chrt -d -T 5000000 -P 16666666 -p 0 pid_of(32bit_app)
> 
> 
> Wouldn't the behaviour of (1) and (2) be different w/o this patch?
> 
> In (1) __sched_setscheduler() happens before execve so it operates on
> p->cpus_ptr equal span.
> 
> In (2) span != p->cpus_ptr so DL AC will fail.
> 

As far as I got, the case (1) would be spitted in two steps:

 - __sched_setscheduler() will work, then
 - execv() would fail because (span != p->cpus_ptr)

So... at the end, both (1) and (2) would result in a failure...

am I missing something?

-- Daniel