Message-ID: <9861c077-55c6-60f4-02ea-bd0138945c16@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 26 Jan 2023 15:58:41 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.6.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sched: Store restrict_cpus_allowed_ptr() call state
Content-Language: en-US
From:   Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
To:     Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
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
References: <20230121021749.55313-1-longman@redhat.com>
 <20230124194805.GA27257@willie-the-truck>
 <fdf76fb2-1da4-2d72-7eb3-21137a7d6845@redhat.com>
 <20230126161110.GB29438@willie-the-truck>
 <af7488b7-9bed-69c2-274f-90ce05f8b435@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <af7488b7-9bed-69c2-274f-90ce05f8b435@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

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