On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 06:37:21PM +0100, Qais Yousef wrote: > On 05/18/21 10:47, Will Deacon wrote: > > Document support for running 32-bit tasks on asymmetric 32-bit systems > > and its impact on the user ABI when enabled. > > > > Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > .../admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt | 3 + > > Documentation/arm64/asymmetric-32bit.rst | 149 ++++++++++++++++++ > > Documentation/arm64/index.rst | 1 + > > 3 files changed, 153 insertions(+) > > create mode 100644 Documentation/arm64/asymmetric-32bit.rst > > > > [...] > > > +Cpusets > > +------- > > + > > +The affinity of a 32-bit task may include CPUs that are not explicitly > > +allowed by the cpuset to which it is attached. This can occur as a > > +result of the following two situations: > > + > > + - A 64-bit task attached to a cpuset which allows only 64-bit CPUs > > + executes a 32-bit program. > > + > > + - All of the 32-bit-capable CPUs allowed by a cpuset containing a > > + 32-bit task are offlined. > > + > > +In both of these cases, the new affinity is calculated according to step > > +(2) of the process described in `execve(2)`_ and the cpuset hierarchy is > > +unchanged irrespective of the cgroup version. > > nit: Should we call out that we're breaking cpuset-v1 behavior? Don't feel > strongly about it. I think the text is pretty clear that the new behaviour documented here applies to cpuset-v1 and I wouldn't say we're breaking anything as we're not changing any of the existing behaviours. Will
