On 07/06/21 23:52, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 04, 2021 at 06:12:32PM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote:
>> On 02/06/21 17:47, Will Deacon wrote:
>> > + /*
>> > + * Forcefully restricting the affinity of a deadline task is
>> > + * likely to cause problems, so fail and noisily override the
>> > + * mask entirely.
>> > + */
>> > + if (task_has_dl_policy(p) && dl_bandwidth_enabled()) {
>> > + err = -EPERM;
>> > + goto err_unlock;
>> > + }
>> > +
>> > + if (!cpumask_and(new_mask, &p->cpus_mask, subset_mask)) {
>> > + err = -EINVAL;
>> > + goto err_unlock;
>> > + }
>> > +
>> > + /*
>> > + * We're about to butcher the task affinity, so keep track of what
>> > + * the user asked for in case we're able to restore it later on.
>> > + */
>> > + if (user_mask) {
>> > + cpumask_copy(user_mask, p->cpus_ptr);
>> > + p->user_cpus_ptr = user_mask;
>> > + }
>> > +
>>
>> Shouldn't that be done before any of the bailouts above, so we can
>> potentially restore the mask even if we end up forcefully expanding the
>> affinity?
>
> I don't think so. I deliberately only track the old mask if we've managed
> to take a subset for the 32-bit task. If we end up having to override the
> mask entirely, then I treat it the same way as an explicit affinity change
> (only with a warning printed) and don't then try to restore the old mask --
> it feels like we'd be overriding the affinity twice if we tried to do that.
>
Put in this way, it does make sense to me. Thanks!
