linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] workqueue: Fix affinity of kworkers attached during late hotplug

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:   Fri, 11 Dec 2020 13:16:38 +0000
From:   Vincent Donnefort <vincent.donnefort@....com>
To:     Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Qian Cai <cai@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, tglx@...utronix.de,
        mingo@...nel.org, bigeasy@...utronix.de, qais.yousef@....com,
        swood@...hat.com, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
        vincent.guittot@...aro.org, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
        rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de,
        bristot@...hat.com, tj@...nel.org, ouwen210@...mail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] workqueue: Fix affinity of kworkers attached during
 late hotplug

On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 01:13:35PM +0000, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> On 11/12/20 12:51, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> >> In that case maybe we should check for the cpu_active_mask here too ?
> >
> > Looking at it again, I think we might need to.
> >
> > IIUC you can end up with pools bound to a single NUMA node (?). In that
> > case, say the last CPU of a node is going down, then:
> >
> >   workqueue_offline_cpu()
> >     wq_update_unbound_numa()
> >       alloc_unbound_pwq()
> >         get_unbound_pool()
> >
> > would still pick that node, because it doesn't look at the online / active
> > mask. And at this point, we would affine the
> > kworkers to that node, and we're back to having kworkers enqueued on a
> > (!active, online) CPU that is going down...
> 
> Assuming a node covers at least 2 CPUs, that can't actually happen per
> is_cpu_allowed().

Yes indeed, my bad, no problem here.