[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aEBajJN-kvO7-pcS@gpd4>
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2025 16:39:08 +0200
From: Andrea Righi <arighi@...dia.com>
To: Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.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
Hi Yuri,
On Wed, Jun 04, 2025 at 10:13:21AM -0400, Yury Norov wrote:
> 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()
Makes sense, I like the idea of having a stub implementation, I'll send a
v2 with that.
Thanks!
-Andrea
Powered by blists - more mailing lists