linux-kernel - Re: Nohz_full on boot CPU is broken (was: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] wq: Avoid using isolated cpus' timers on queue_delayed

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: Tue, 9 Apr 2024 15:59:59 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Leonardo Bras <leobras@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Junyao Zhao <junzhao@...hat.com>,
	Chris von Recklinghausen <crecklin@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: Nohz_full on boot CPU is broken (was: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] wq:
 Avoid using isolated cpus' timers on queue_delayed_work)

Le Tue, Apr 09, 2024 at 03:07:28PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov a écrit :
> On 04/09, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> >
> > Le Sun, Apr 07, 2024 at 03:09:14PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov a écrit :
> > > Well, the changelog says
> > >
> > >     nohz_full has been trialed at a large supercomputer site and found to
> > >     significantly reduce jitter. In order to deploy it in production, they
> > >     need CPU0 to be nohz_full
> > >
> > > so I guess this feature has users.
> > >
> > > But after the commit aae17ebb53cd3da ("workqueue: Avoid using isolated cpus'
> > > timers on queue_delayed_work") the kernel will crash at boot time if the boot
> > > CPU is nohz_full.
> >
> > Right but there are many possible calls to housekeeping on boot before the
> > first housekeeper becomes online.
> 
> Well, it seems that other callers are more or less fine in this respect...
> At least the kernel boots fine with that commit reverted.
> 
> But a) I didn't try to really check, and b) this doesn't matter.
> 
> I agree, and that is why I never blamed this change in queue_delayed_work().
> 
> OK, you seem to agree with the patch below, I'll write the changelog/comment
> and send it "officially".
> 
> Or did I misunderstand you?

Works for me!

Thanks.

> 
> Oleg.
> 
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/isolation.c b/kernel/sched/isolation.c
> index 373d42c707bc..e912555c6fc8 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/isolation.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/isolation.c
> @@ -46,7 +46,11 @@ int housekeeping_any_cpu(enum hk_type type)
>  			if (cpu < nr_cpu_ids)
>  				return cpu;
>  
> -			return cpumask_any_and(housekeeping.cpumasks[type], cpu_online_mask);
> +			cpu = cpumask_any_and(housekeeping.cpumasks[type], cpu_online_mask);
> +			if (cpu < nr_cpu_ids)
> +				return cpu;
> +
> +			WARN_ON_ONCE(system_state == SYSTEM_RUNNING);
>  		}
>  	}
>  	return smp_processor_id();
>