[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aEBUgWdZtz8E_2d9@yury>
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2025 10:13:21 -0400
From: Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>
To: Andrea Righi <arighi@...dia.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, David Vernet <void@...ifault.com>,
Changwoo Min <changwoo@...lia.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/topology: Fix for_each_node_numadist() lockup with
!CONFIG_NUMA
On Tue, Jun 03, 2025 at 10:04:02AM +0200, Andrea Righi wrote:
> for_each_node_numadist() can lead to hard lockups on kernels built
> without CONFIG_NUMA. For instance, the following was triggered by
> sched_ext:
>
> watchdog: CPU5: Watchdog detected hard LOCKUP on cpu 5
> ...
> RIP: 0010:_find_first_and_bit+0x8/0x60
> ...
> Call Trace:
> <TASK>
> cpumask_any_and_distribute+0x49/0x80
> pick_idle_cpu_in_node+0xcf/0x140
> scx_bpf_pick_idle_cpu_node+0xaa/0x110
> bpf_prog_16ee5b1f077af006_pick_idle_cpu+0x57f/0x5de
> bpf_prog_df2ce5cfac58ce09_bpfland_select_cpu+0x37/0xf4
> bpf__sched_ext_ops_select_cpu+0x4b/0xb3
>
> This happens because nearest_node_nodemask() always returns NUMA_NO_NODE
> (-1) when CONFIG_NUMA is disabled, causing the loop to never terminate,
> as the condition node >= MAX_NUMNODES is never satisfied.
>
> Prevent this by handling NUMA_NO_NODE explicitly in the exit condition.
>
> Fixes: f09177ca5f242 ("sched/topology: Introduce for_each_node_numadist() iterator")
> Signed-off-by: Andrea Righi <arighi@...dia.com>
> ---
> include/linux/topology.h | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/topology.h b/include/linux/topology.h
> index cd6b4bdc9cfd3..095cda6dbf041 100644
> --- a/include/linux/topology.h
> +++ b/include/linux/topology.h
> @@ -310,7 +310,7 @@ sched_numa_hop_mask(unsigned int node, unsigned int hops)
> #define for_each_node_numadist(node, unvisited) \
> for (int __start = (node), \
> (node) = nearest_node_nodemask((__start), &(unvisited)); \
> - (node) < MAX_NUMNODES; \
> + (node) < MAX_NUMNODES && (node) != NUMA_NO_NODE; \
> node_clear((node), (unvisited)), \
> (node) = nearest_node_nodemask((__start), &(unvisited)))
When NUMA is enabled, you add an extra conditional which is never the
true.
When disabled, I think this macro should not be available, or more
likely have a stub implementation, similar to for_each_node_mask()
Thanks,
Yury
Powered by blists - more mailing lists