Date:   Thu, 26 Jan 2023 16:11:11 +0000
From:   Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
To:     Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
        Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
        Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, regressions@lists.linux.dev,
        regressions@leemhuis.info
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sched: Store restrict_cpus_allowed_ptr() call state
Message-ID: <20230126161110.GB29438@willie-the-truck>
References: <20230121021749.55313-1-longman@redhat.com>
 <20230124194805.GA27257@willie-the-truck>
 <fdf76fb2-1da4-2d72-7eb3-21137a7d6845@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <fdf76fb2-1da4-2d72-7eb3-21137a7d6845@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

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!

Will