Re: [PATCH 1/2] cpuset: Fix cpuset_cpus_allowed() to not filter offline CPUs

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 11:14:27PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 1/31/23 17:17, Will Deacon wrote:
> > From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > There is a difference in behaviour between CPUSET={y,n} that is now
> > wrecking havoc with {relax,force}_compatible_cpus_allowed_ptr().
> > 
> > Specifically, since commit 8f9ea86fdf99 ("sched: Always preserve the
> > user requested cpumask")  relax_compatible_cpus_allowed_ptr() is
> > calling __sched_setaffinity() unconditionally.
> > 
> > But the underlying problem goes back a lot further, possibly to
> > commit: ae1c802382f7 ("cpuset: apply cs->effective_{cpus,mems}") which
> > switched cpuset_cpus_allowed() from cs->cpus_allowed to
> > cs->effective_cpus.
> > 
> > The problem is that for CPUSET=y cpuset_cpus_allowed() will filter out
> > all offline CPUs. For tasks that are part of a (!root) cpuset this is
> > then later fixed up by the cpuset hotplug notifiers that re-evaluate
> > and re-apply cs->effective_cpus, but for (normal) tasks in the root
> > cpuset this does not happen and they will forever after be excluded
> > from CPUs onlined later.
> > 
> > As such, rewrite cpuset_cpus_allowed() to return a wider mask,
> > including the offline CPUs.
> > 
> > Fixes: 8f9ea86fdf99 ("sched: Always preserve the user requested cpumask")
> > Reported-by: Will Deacon <will@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20230117160825.GA17756@willie-the-truck
> > Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Before cgroup v2, cpuset had only one cpumask - cpus_allowed. It only
> tracked online cpus and ignored the offline ones. It behaves more like
> effective_cpus in cpuset v2. With v2, we have 2 cpumasks - cpus_allowed and
> effective_cpus. When cpuset v1 is mounted, cpus_allowed and effective_cpus
> are effectively the same and track online cpus. With cpuset v2, cpus_allowed
> contains what the user has written into and it won't be changed until
> another write happen. However, what the user written may not be what the
> system can give it and effective_cpus is what the system decides a cpuset
> can use.
> 
> Cpuset v2 is able to handle hotplug correctly and update the task's cpumask
> accordingly. So missing previously offline cpus won't happen with v2.
> 
> Since v1 keeps the old behavior, previously offlined cpus are lost in the
> cpuset's cpus_allowed. However tasks in the root cpuset will still be fine
> with cpu hotplug as its cpus_allowed should track cpu_online_mask. IOW, only
> tasks in a non-root cpuset suffer this problem.
> 
> It was a known issue in v1 and I believe is one of the major reasons of the
> cpuset v2 redesign.
> 
> A major concern I have is the overhead of creating a poor man version of v2
> cpus_allowed. This issue can be worked around even for cpuset v1 if it is
> mounted with the cpuset_v2_mode option to behave more like v2 in its cpumask
> handling. Alternatively we may be able to provide a config option to make
> this the default for v1 without the special mount option, if necessary.

You're still not getting it -- even cpuset (be it v1 or v2) *MUST* *NOT*
mask offline cpus for root cgroup tasks, ever. (And the only reason it
gets away with masking offline for !root is that it re-applies the mask
every time it changes.)

Yes it did that for a fair while -- but it is wrong and broken and a
very big behavioural difference between CONFIG_CPUSET={y,n}. This must
not be.

Arguably cpuset-v2 is still wrong for masking offline cpus in it's
effective_cpus mask, but I really didn't want to go rewrite cpuset.c for
something that needs to go into /urgent *now*.

Hence this minimal patch that at least lets sched_setaffinity() work as
intended.