Message-ID: <20070829125150.GF28499@in.ibm.com>
Date:	Wed, 29 Aug 2007 18:21:50 +0530
From:	Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
Cc:	Cliff Wickman <cpw@....com>, Paul Jackson <pj@....com>,
	Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: cpusets vs cpu-hotplug interaction is broken?

On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 02:52:04PM +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 08/29, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 05:48:53PM +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > (cpu-hotplug experts cc'ed)
> > > 
> > > On 08/25, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > >
> > > > After the brief look at kernel/cpuset.c, it seems that attach_task() should
> > > > guarantee that the task can't use CPUs outside of cpuset->cpus_allowed.
> > > > 
> > > > But this looks racy wrt sched_setaffinity() which does
> > > > 
> > > > 	cpus_allowed = cpuset_cpus_allowed(p);
> > > > 	// callback_mutex is free
> > > > 	set_cpus_allowed(p);
> > > > 
> > > > What if attach_task()->set_cpus_allowed() happens in between?
> > > 
> > > Actually, I think there is another problem, and cpuset_cpus_allowed() is
> > > just broken wrt CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU.
> > > 
> > > Suppose that CONFIG_CPUSETS is true, but we don't use cpusets. In that
> > > case all tasks in system belong to the top_cpuset (btw, why cpuset_init()
> > > sets init_task.cpuset? this was already done by cpuset_init_early()), and
> > > we should have the same behaviour as without CONFIG_CPUSETS.
> > > 
> > > By default, all tasks have ->cpus_allowed = CPU_MASK_ALL inherited from
> > > kernel_init(). This means that the task can use the new CPU right after
> > > cpu_up().
> > > 
> > > Now let's suppose that some task does sched_setaffinity(0, CPU_MASK_ALL).
> > > In that case, cpuset_cpus_allowed() sets ->cpus_allowed = cpu_online_map,
> > > and I think this is just wrong. Now that task doesn't see the new CPUs.
> > > 
> > 
> > Good point! 
> > 
> > A task's cpu_allowed mask can contain cpus which are offline.
> > And if those cpus exist in the intersection of the task's requested mask
> > and cpuset's cpu mask, why should we unset the offlined cpus from that 
> > intersection? Either way the task is not going to run on the cpus while
> > they are in the offlined state.  And on cpu_up, if the cpu is present in
> > the task's allowed mask, it can run on that cpu, which is a good thing.
> > 
> > The two users of cpuset_cpus_allowed - sched_setaffinity and pdflush
> > don't seem to require the online cpu information.
> > 
> > Paul, is there any particular reason why we need guarentee_online_cpus
> > to be called in cpuset_cpus_allowed ? 
> 
> Note also that cpuset_cpus_allowed()->guarentee_online_cpus() easily allows
> the task to escape its ->cpuset, sched_setaffinity(cpumask_of_cpu(OFFLINE_CPU))
> is enough.

Well, the comment for cpuset_cpus_allowed() says

/* 
 * Description: Returns the cpumask_t cpus_allowed of the cpuset
 * attached to the specified @tsk.  Guaranteed to return some non-empty
 * subset of cpu_online_map, even if this means going outside the
 * tasks cpuset.             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
 **/^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Since this behaviour has been documented, I presume there is a reason
behind it. 

So either we're incorrectly using cpuset_cpus_allowed in
sched_setaffinity or we're missing something subtle :)

Thanks and Regards
gautham.
-- 
Gautham R Shenoy
Linux Technology Center
IBM India.
"Freedom comes with a price tag of responsibility, which is still a bargain,
because Freedom is priceless!"
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists