From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S932666AbdDFL40 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Thu, 6 Apr 2017 07:56:26 -0400
Received: from Galois.linutronix.de ([146.0.238.70]:36783 "EHLO
        Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1752297AbdDFL4Q (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 6 Apr 2017 07:56:16 -0400
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 13:56:12 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] kernel: sched: Provide a pointer to the valid CPU
 mask
In-Reply-To: <20170406115058.pntrn7mgywt7j3va@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1704061354440.1716@nanos>
References: <20170404184202.20376-1-bigeasy@linutronix.de> <20170406093224.q3tunb6gdx5a6flr@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20170406094626.a42cq66ezgq4lohh@linutronix.de> <20170406103516.i3jyjcmee65r3wwj@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <alpine.DEB.2.20.1704061237210.1716@nanos> <20170406105736.uw2j22igja45wi4b@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1704061259580.1716@nanos> <20170406115058.pntrn7mgywt7j3va@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, 6 Apr 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 01:03:16PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> 
> > Fair enough, but I prefer to have the ability for a temporary restriction
> > of the user space visible cpus allowed mask in the core code, which can be
> > used for both migrate_disable() and things like that MIPS FPU stuff rather
> > than all those home brewn hackeries which are prone to bitrot, security
> > issues and subtle wreckage. cpus_allowed should be solely under sched core
> > control and not accessible from anything outside.
> 
> So the big difference between what MIPS does and what migrate_disable()
> needs here is the amount of storage.
> 
> For migrate_disable() we don't need a whole second cpumask bitmap. We
> can simply use one of the static cpumask_of() things.
> 
> Given that cpumask bitmaps can be quite large, adding another one to
> task_struct just for $very_rare_occasion, doesn't seem like a good
> thing.

A pointer to the effective mask is definitely enough. And that's what we
need for migrate_disable() as well. That still leaves the storage
requirement to MIPS.

Thanks,

	tglx