[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aG5mjYxTVRovIETd@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2025 14:54:37 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
To: Xiongfeng Wang <wangxiongfeng2@...wei.com>
Cc: anna-maria@...utronix.de, tglx@...utronix.de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, xiexiuqi@...wei.com,
bobo.shaobowang@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hrtimers: Update new CPU's next event in
hrtimers_cpu_dying()
Le Wed, Jul 09, 2025 at 11:18:14AM +0800, Xiongfeng Wang a écrit :
> Hi Frederic,
>
> On 2025/7/8 20:40, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > Le Tue, Jul 08, 2025 at 06:17:27PM +0800, Xiongfeng Wang a écrit :
> >> When testing softirq based hrtimers on an ARM32 board, with high
> >> resolution mode and nohz are both inactive, softirq based hrtimers
> >> failed to trigger when moved away from an offline CPU. The flowpath
> >> is as follows.
> >>
> >> CPU0 CPU1
> >> softirq based hrtimers are queued
> >> offline CPU1
> >> move hrtimers to CPU0 in hrtimers_cpu_dying()
> >> send IPI to CPU0 to retrigger next event
> >> 'softirq_expires_next' is KTIME_MAX
> >> call retrigger_next_event()
> >> highres and nohz is inactive,just return
> >> 'softirq_expires_next' is not updated
> >> hrtimer softirq is never triggered
> >>
> >> Some softirq based hrtimers are queued on CPU1. Then we offline CPU1.
> >> hrtimers_cpu_dying() moves hrtimers from CPU1 to CPU0, and then it send
> >> a IPI to CPU0 to let CPU0 call retrigger_next_event(). But high
> >> resolution mode and nohz are both inactive. So retrigger_next_event()
> >> just returned. 'softirq_expires_next' is never updated and remains
> >> KTIME_MAX. So hrtimer softirq is never raised.
> >>
> >> To fix this issue, we call hrtimer_update_next_event() in
> >> hrtimers_cpu_dying() to update 'softirq_expires_next' for the new CPU.
> >> It also update hardirq hrtimer's next event, but it should have no bad
> >> effect.
> >>
> >> Fixes: 5c0930ccaad5 ("hrtimers: Push pending hrtimers away from outgoing CPU earlier")
> >> Signed-off-by: Xiongfeng Wang <wangxiongfeng2@...wei.com>
> >> ---
> >> kernel/time/hrtimer.c | 5 ++++-
> >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/kernel/time/hrtimer.c b/kernel/time/hrtimer.c
> >> index 30899a8cc52c..ff97eb36c116 100644
> >> --- a/kernel/time/hrtimer.c
> >> +++ b/kernel/time/hrtimer.c
> >> @@ -2298,8 +2298,11 @@ int hrtimers_cpu_dying(unsigned int dying_cpu)
> >> /*
> >> * The migration might have changed the first expiring softirq
> >> * timer on this CPU. Update it.
> >> + * We also need to update 'softirq_expires_next' here, because it will
> >> + * not be updated in retrigger_next_event() if high resolution mode
> >> + * and nohz are both inactive.
> >> */
> >> - __hrtimer_get_next_event(new_base, HRTIMER_ACTIVE_SOFT);
> >> + hrtimer_update_next_event(new_base);
> >> /* Tell the other CPU to retrigger the next event */
> >> smp_call_function_single(ncpu, retrigger_next_event, NULL, 0);
> >
> > It seems that a similar problem can happen while enqueueing a timer
> > from an offline CPU (see the call to smp_call_function_single_async()).
> >
> > How about this (untested) instead? retrigger_next_event, is not a fast
> > path so we don't care about rare extra cost:
>
> This modification can solve the problem. Thanks a lot.
Thanks! Feel free to send an updated version of the patch.
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/time/hrtimer.c b/kernel/time/hrtimer.c
> > index 30899a8cc52c..e8c479329282 100644
> > --- a/kernel/time/hrtimer.c
> > +++ b/kernel/time/hrtimer.c
> > @@ -787,10 +787,10 @@ static void retrigger_next_event(void *arg)
> > * of the next expiring timer is enough. The return from the SMP
> > * function call will take care of the reprogramming in case the
> > * CPU was in a NOHZ idle sleep.
> > + *
> > + * In periodic low resolution mode, the next softirq expiration
> > + * must also be updated.
> > */
> > - if (!hrtimer_hres_active(base) && !tick_nohz_active)
> > - return;
>
> Once we remove this check. The problem disappears.
> Also I noticed that we check whether highres is active before we really program
> the hardware in __hrtimer_reprogram(). So if the above check in
> retrigger_next_event() is just to decrease extra cost, I think we can remove
> it
I think it was also to remove extra base locking.
But then again, this is a slow path so this should be harmless.
Thanks.
--
Frederic Weisbecker
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists