[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZEmBy0H5T5vQJDUW@slm.duckdns.org>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2023 09:55:55 -1000
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc: rcu@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-team@...a.com, rostedt@...dmis.org, riel@...riel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC rcu] Stop rcu_tasks_invoke_cbs() from using
never-online CPUs
Hello, Paul.
On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 10:26:38AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> The rcu_tasks_invoke_cbs() relies on queue_work_on() to silently fall
> back to WORK_CPU_UNBOUND when the specified CPU is offline. However,
> the queue_work_on() function's silent fallback mechanism relies on that
> CPU having been online at some time in the past. When queue_work_on()
> is passed a CPU that has never been online, workqueue lockups ensue,
> which can be bad for your kernel's general health and well-being.
>
> This commit therefore checks whether a given CPU is currently online,
> and, if not substitutes WORK_CPU_UNBOUND in the subsequent call to
> queue_work_on(). Why not simply omit the queue_work_on() call entirely?
> Because this function is flooding callback-invocation notifications
> to all CPUs, and must deal with possibilities that include a sparse
> cpu_possible_mask.
>
> Fixes: d363f833c6d88 rcu-tasks: Use workqueues for multiple rcu_tasks_invoke_cbs() invocations
> Reported-by: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>
I don't understand the code at all but wonder whether it can do sth similar
to cpumask_any_distribute() which RR's through the specified cpumask. Would
it make sense to change rcu_tasks_invoke_cbs() to do something similar
against cpu_online_mask?
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists