linux-kernel - Re: Question on handling managed IRQs when hotplugging CPUs

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20190129154433.GF15302@localhost.localdomain>
Date:   Tue, 29 Jan 2019 08:44:33 -0700
From:   Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>
To:     John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>
Cc:     "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
        "axboe@...nel.dk" <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Linuxarm <linuxarm@...wei.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.com>
Subject: Re: Question on handling managed IRQs when hotplugging CPUs

On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 03:25:48AM -0800, John Garry wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I have a question on $subject which I hope you can shed some light on.
> 
> According to commit c5cb83bb337c25 ("genirq/cpuhotplug: Handle managed 
> IRQs on CPU hotplug"), if we offline the last CPU in a managed IRQ 
> affinity mask, the IRQ is shutdown.
> 
> The reasoning is that this IRQ is thought to be associated with a 
> specific queue on a MQ device, and the CPUs in the IRQ affinity mask are 
> the same CPUs associated with the queue. So, if no CPU is using the 
> queue, then no need for the IRQ.
> 
> However how does this handle scenario of last CPU in IRQ affinity mask 
> being offlined while IO associated with queue is still in flight?
> 
> Or if we make the decision to use queue associated with the current CPU, 
> and then that CPU (being the last CPU online in the queue's IRQ 
> afffinity mask) goes offline and we finish the delivery with another CPU?
> 
> In these cases, when the IO completes, it would not be serviced and timeout.
> 
> I have actually tried this on my arm64 system and I see IO timeouts.

Hm, we used to freeze the queues with CPUHP_BLK_MQ_PREPARE callback,
which would reap all outstanding commands before the CPU and IRQ are
taken offline. That was removed with commit 4b855ad37194f ("blk-mq:
Create hctx for each present CPU"). It sounds like we should bring
something like that back, but make more fine grain to the per-cpu context.