Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 4 May 2023 10:13:37 +0200
From:   Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Qais Yousef <qyousef@layalina.io>,
        Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
        Zefan Li <lizefan.x@bytedance.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Hao Luo <haoluo@google.com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, luca.abeni@santannapisa.it,
        claudio@evidence.eu.com, tommaso.cucinotta@santannapisa.it,
        bristot@redhat.com, mathieu.poirier@linaro.org,
        cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Wei Wang <wvw@google.com>, Rick Yiu <rickyiu@google.com>,
        Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>,
        Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
        Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
        Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@linux.ibm.com>,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/6] sched/cpuset: Bring back cpuset_mutex
Message-ID: <ZFNpMT+gLbETz8Mp@localhost.localdomain>
References: <20230503072228.115707-1-juri.lelli@redhat.com>
 <20230503072228.115707-3-juri.lelli@redhat.com>
 <20230504061842.GC1734100@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230504061842.GC1734100@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Precedence: bulk

On 04/05/23 08:18, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, May 03, 2023 at 09:22:24AM +0200, Juri Lelli wrote:
> 
> >  /*
> > - * There are two global locks guarding cpuset structures - cpuset_rwsem and
> > + * There are two global locks guarding cpuset structures - cpuset_mutex and
> >   * callback_lock. We also require taking task_lock() when dereferencing a
> >   * task's cpuset pointer. See "The task_lock() exception", at the end of this
> > - * comment.  The cpuset code uses only cpuset_rwsem write lock.  Other
> > - * kernel subsystems can use cpuset_read_lock()/cpuset_read_unlock() to
> > - * prevent change to cpuset structures.
> > + * comment.  The cpuset code uses only cpuset_mutex. Other kernel subsystems
> > + * can use cpuset_lock()/cpuset_unlock() to prevent change to cpuset
> > + * structures.
> >   *
> >   * A task must hold both locks to modify cpusets.  If a task holds
> > - * cpuset_rwsem, it blocks others wanting that rwsem, ensuring that it
> > - * is the only task able to also acquire callback_lock and be able to
> > - * modify cpusets.  It can perform various checks on the cpuset structure
> > - * first, knowing nothing will change.  It can also allocate memory while
> > - * just holding cpuset_rwsem.  While it is performing these checks, various
> > - * callback routines can briefly acquire callback_lock to query cpusets.
> > - * Once it is ready to make the changes, it takes callback_lock, blocking
> > - * everyone else.
> > + * cpuset_mutex, it blocks others, ensuring that it is the only task able to
> > + * also acquire callback_lock and be able to modify cpusets.  It can perform
> > + * various checks on the cpuset structure first, knowing nothing will change.
> > + * It can also allocate memory while just holding cpuset_mutex.  While it is
> > + * performing these checks, various callback routines can briefly acquire
> > + * callback_lock to query cpusets.  Once it is ready to make the changes, it
> > + * takes callback_lock, blocking everyone else.
> >   *
> >   * Calls to the kernel memory allocator can not be made while holding
> >   * callback_lock, as that would risk double tripping on callback_lock
> > @@ -403,16 +402,16 @@ static struct cpuset top_cpuset = {
> >   * guidelines for accessing subsystem state in kernel/cgroup.c
> >   */
> >  
> > -DEFINE_STATIC_PERCPU_RWSEM(cpuset_rwsem);
> > +static DEFINE_MUTEX(cpuset_mutex);
> 
> Perhaps extend the comment to state you explicitly want a mutex for PI
> etc.. ?
> 

Sure, can do that.

Thanks!