On Thursday 19 Nov 2020 at 11:07:24 (+0000), Will Deacon wrote: > Yeah, the cpuset code ignores the return value of set_cpus_allowed_ptr() in > update_tasks_cpumask() so the failure won't be propagated, but then again I > think that might be the right thing to do. Nothing prevents 32-bit and > 64-bit tasks from co-existing in the same cpuseti afaict, so forcing the > 64-bit tasks onto the 32-bit-capable cores feels much worse than the > approach taken here imo. Ack. And thinking about it more, failing the cgroup operation wouldn't guarantee that the task's affinity and the cpuset are aligned anyway. We could still exec into a 32 bit task from within a 64 bit-only cpuset. > The interesting case is what happens if the cpuset for a 32-bit task is > changed to contain only the 64-bit-only cores. I think that's a userspace > bug Maybe, but I think Android will do exactly that in some cases :/ > but the fallback rq selection should avert disaster. I thought _this_ patch was 'fixing' this case by making the cpuset operation pretty much a nop on the task affinity? The fallback rq stuff is all about hotplug no? Thanks, Quentin
