linux-kernel - Re: [bisected][mainline]Kernel warnings at kernel/sched/cpudeadline.c:219

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]

Message-ID: <20251009114958.GC4067720@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2025 13:49:58 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Shrikanth Hegde <sshegde@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: Venkat Rao Bagalkote <venkat88@...ux.ibm.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
	Madhavan Srinivasan <maddy@...ux.ibm.com>, jstultz@...gle.com,
	stultz@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [bisected][mainline]Kernel warnings at
 kernel/sched/cpudeadline.c:219

On Thu, Oct 09, 2025 at 03:17:40PM +0530, Shrikanth Hegde wrote:
> 
> 
> On 10/9/25 1:30 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 08, 2025 at 11:39:11PM +0530, Shrikanth Hegde wrote:
> > 
> > > *It pointed to this*
> > > 
> > > NIP [c0000000001fd798] dl_server_start+0x50/0xd8
> > > LR [c0000000001d9534] enqueue_task_fair+0x228/0x8ec
> > > Call Trace:
> > > [c000006684a579c0] [0000000000000001] 0x1 (unreliable)
> > > [c000006684a579f0] [c0000000001d9534] enqueue_task_fair+0x228/0x8ec
> > > [c000006684a57a60] [c0000000001bb344] enqueue_task+0x5c/0x1c8
> > > [c000006684a57aa0] [c0000000001c5fc0] ttwu_do_activate+0x98/0x2fc
> > > [c000006684a57af0] [c0000000001c671c] try_to_wake_up+0x2e0/0xa60
> > > [c000006684a57b80] [c00000000019fb48] kthread_park+0x7c/0xf0
> > > [c000006684a57bb0] [c00000000015fefc] takedown_cpu+0x60/0x194
> > > [c000006684a57c00] [c000000000161924] cpuhp_invoke_callback+0x1f4/0x9a4
> > > [c000006684a57c90] [c0000000001621a4] __cpuhp_invoke_callback_range+0xd0/0x188
> > > [c000006684a57d30] [c000000000165aec] _cpu_down+0x19c/0x560
> > > [c000006684a57df0] [c0000000001637c0] __cpu_down_maps_locked+0x2c/0x3c
> > > [c000006684a57e10] [c00000000018a100] work_for_cpu_fn+0x38/0x54
> > > [c000006684a57e40] [c00000000019075c] process_one_work+0x1d8/0x554
> > > [c000006684a57ef0] [c00000000019165c] worker_thread+0x308/0x46c
> > > [c000006684a57f90] [c00000000019e474] kthread+0x16c/0x19c
> > > [c000006684a57fe0] [c00000000000dd58] start_kernel_thread+0x14/0x18
> > > 
> > > It is takedown_cpu called from CPU0(boot CPU) and it wakes up kthread
> > > which is CPU Bound I guess.  Since happens after rq was marked
> > > offline, it ends up starting the deadline server again.
> > > 
> > > So i think it is sensible idea to stop the deadline server if the cpu
> > > is going down.  Once we stop the server we will return
> > > HRTIMER_NORESTART.
> > 
> > D'0h.. that stop was far too early.
> > 
> > How about moving that dl_server_stop() into sched_cpu_dying() like so.
> > 
> > This seems to survive a few hotplugs for me.
> > 
> > ---
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > index 198d2dd45f59..f1ebf67b48e2 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > @@ -8571,10 +8571,12 @@ int sched_cpu_dying(unsigned int cpu)
> >   	sched_tick_stop(cpu);
> >   	rq_lock_irqsave(rq, &rf);
> > +	update_rq_clock(rq);
> >   	if (rq->nr_running != 1 || rq_has_pinned_tasks(rq)) {
> >   		WARN(true, "Dying CPU not properly vacated!");
> >   		dump_rq_tasks(rq, KERN_WARNING);
> >   	}
> > +	dl_server_stop(&rq->fair_server);
> >   	rq_unlock_irqrestore(rq, &rf);
> >   	calc_load_migrate(rq);
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/deadline.c b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> > index 615411a0a881..7b7671060bf9 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> > @@ -1582,6 +1582,9 @@ void dl_server_start(struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se)
> >   	if (!dl_server(dl_se) || dl_se->dl_server_active)
> >   		return;
> > +	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!cpu_online(cpu_of(rq))))
> > +		return;
> > +
> >   	dl_se->dl_server_active = 1;
> >   	enqueue_dl_entity(dl_se, ENQUEUE_WAKEUP);
> >   	if (!dl_task(dl_se->rq->curr) || dl_entity_preempt(dl_se, &rq->curr->dl))
> 
> Yes. This works. no warning with drmgr or chcpu.
> 
> shall i write changelog and send it as patch?

If you would. Thanks!