[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YvymwlTkdsVDtmRB@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2022 10:28:50 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Zefan Li <lizefan.x@...edance.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] sched: Use user_cpus_ptr for saving user provided
cpumask in sched_setaffinity()
On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 03:27:32PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> This will be some changes in behavior for arm64 systems with asymmetric
> CPUs in some corner cases. For instance, if sched_setaffinity()
> has never been called and there is a cpuset change before
> relax_compatible_cpus_allowed_ptr() is called, its subsequent call will
> follow what the cpuset allows but not what the previous cpu affinity
> setting allows.
That's arguably a correctness fix, no? That is, the save/restore should
not have been allowed to revert to an earlier cpuset state.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists