[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a645086d-bffb-41b0-bd70-1ef5edb128f9@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2024 08:42:33 -0400
From: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To: Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan@...soc.com>, mingo@...hat.com,
peterz@...radead.org, juri.lelli@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org
Cc: dietmar.eggemann@....com, rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com,
mgorman@...e.de, vschneid@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
ke.wang@...soc.com, di.shen@...soc.com, xuewen.yan94@...il.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] sched: Do not copy user_cpus_ptr when parent is
reset_on_fork
On 9/5/24 05:04, Xuewen Yan wrote:
> Now, the task's user_cpus_ptr would dup from parent's user_cpus_ptr.
> It is better reset the user_cpus_ptr when parent's reset_on_fork
> is set.
According to sched(7):
Each thread has a reset-on-fork scheduling flag. When this flag
is set, children created by fork(2) do not inherit privileged
scheduling policies.
It can be argued what are considered privileged scheduling policies.
AFAICS, a restricted affinity doesn't seem to be a "privileged"
scheduling policy. That is my own opinion strictly from the definition
point of view, I will let others weigh in on that and I am OK to go
either way.
Cheers,
Longman
>
> Signed-off-by: Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan@...soc.com>
> ---
> kernel/sched/core.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index f3951e4a55e5..2fbae00cd1dc 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -2666,7 +2666,7 @@ int dup_user_cpus_ptr(struct task_struct *dst, struct task_struct *src,
> * do_set_cpus_allowed().
> */
> raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&src->pi_lock, flags);
> - if (src->user_cpus_ptr) {
> + if (src->user_cpus_ptr && !src->sched_reset_on_fork) {
> swap(dst->user_cpus_ptr, user_mask);
> cpumask_copy(dst->user_cpus_ptr, src->user_cpus_ptr);
> }
Powered by blists - more mailing lists