[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200403011559.GH103677@xz-x1>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2020 21:15:59 -0400
From: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sched/isolation: Allow "isolcpus=" to skip unknown
sub-parameters
On Thu, Apr 02, 2020 at 10:59:29AM -0400, Peter Xu wrote:
> The "isolcpus=" parameter allows sub-parameters to exist before the
> cpulist is specified, and if it sees unknown sub-parameters the whole
> parameter will be ignored. This design is incompatible with itself
> when we add more sub-parameters to "isolcpus=", because the old
> kernels will not recognize the new "isolcpus=" sub-parameters, then it
> will invalidate the whole parameter so the CPU isolation will not
> really take effect if we start to use the new sub-parameters while
> later we reboot into an old kernel. Instead we will see this when
> booting the old kernel:
>
> isolcpus: Error, unknown flag
>
> The better and compatible way is to allow "isolcpus=" to skip unknown
> sub-parameters, so that even if we add new sub-parameters to it the
> old kernel will still be able to behave as usual even if with the new
> sub-parameter is specified.
>
> Ideally this patch should be there when we introduce the first
> sub-parameter for "isolcpus=", so it's already a bit late. However
> late is better than nothing.
>
> CC: Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>
> CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
> CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> CC: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>
> CC: Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@...hat.com>
> Suggested-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
> ---
> v2:
> - only allow isalpha() for sub-parameters [tglx]
> ---
> kernel/sched/isolation.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/isolation.c b/kernel/sched/isolation.c
> index 008d6ac2342b..c2e8b4a778d6 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/isolation.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/isolation.c
> @@ -149,6 +149,9 @@ __setup("nohz_full=", housekeeping_nohz_full_setup);
> static int __init housekeeping_isolcpus_setup(char *str)
> {
> unsigned int flags = 0;
> + char *par;
> + int len;
> + bool illegal = false;
>
> while (isalpha(*str)) {
> if (!strncmp(str, "nohz,", 5)) {
> @@ -169,8 +172,21 @@ static int __init housekeeping_isolcpus_setup(char *str)
> continue;
> }
>
> - pr_warn("isolcpus: Error, unknown flag\n");
> - return 0;
> + /*
> + * Skip unknown sub-parameter and validate that it is not
> + * containing an invalid character.
> + */
> + for (par = str, len = 0; *str && *str != ','; str++, len++)
> + if (!isalpha(*str))
> + illegal = true;
> +
> + if (illegal) {
> + pr_warn("isolcpus: Invalid flag %.*s\n", len, par);
> + return 0;
> + }
> +
> + pr_info("isolcpus: Skipped unknown flag %.*s\n", len, par);
> + str++;
> }
I just noticed this is still problematic if we want to mark this as
stable, because "managed_irq" violate the "isalpha()" rule already...
It means even if we apply this patch to the stable trees it'll still
think managed_irq as illegal and ignore the whole isolcpus=.
Thomas, do you want me to repost a v3 as v1 plus some pr_warn()s?
Thanks,
--
Peter Xu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists