Re: [PATCH v3] sched/core: Use empty mask to reset cpumasks in sched_setaffinity()

From: Waiman Long
Date: Tue Oct 03 2023 - 14:33:33 EST



On 10/3/23 05:17, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Waiman Long <longman@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Since commit 8f9ea86fdf99 ("sched: Always preserve the user requested
cpumask"), user provided CPU affinity via sched_setaffinity(2) is
perserved even if the task is being moved to a different cpuset. However,
that affinity is also being inherited by any subsequently created child
processes which may not want or be aware of that affinity.

One way to solve this problem is to provide a way to back off from
that user provided CPU affinity. This patch implements such a scheme
by using an empty cpumask to signal a reset of the cpumasks to the
default as allowed by the current cpuset.

Before this patch, passing in an empty cpumask to sched_setaffinity(2)
will always return an -EINVAL error. With this patch, an alternative
error of -ENODEV will be returned returned if sched_setaffinity(2)
has been called before to set up user_cpus_ptr. In this case, the
user_cpus_ptr that stores the user provided affinity will be cleared and
the task's CPU affinity will be reset to that of the current cpuset. This
alternative error code of -ENODEV signals that the no CPU is specified
and, at the same time, a side effect of resetting cpu affinity to the
cpuset default.
I agree that this problem needs a solution, but I don't really agree
with the -ENODEV ABI hack.

Why not just return success in that case? The 'reset' of the mask was
successful after all.

I believe the v1 patch just returns success like what you said. However, there are existing tests that assume a sched_setaffinity() call with empty cpumask in the valid cpu range will return error. It is also sometime used to check if the CPU number is out of the valid range. That is the reason why I change the patch to return error as well to avoid breaking existing use cases. I purposely return a different error to indicate a reset has happened. Let me know if you have other suggestions on the best way forward.

Thanks,
Longman