mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Waiman Long <llong@redhat.com>
To: Gabriele Monaco <gmonaco@redhat.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@linutronix.de>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 7/8] cgroup/cpuset: Fail if isolated and nohz_full don't leave any housekeeping
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2025 11:40:58 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <16908a7d-2329-475f-b932-91ea5c9cc02e@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250808160142.103852-8-gmonaco@redhat.com>

On 8/8/25 12:01 PM, Gabriele Monaco wrote:
> Currently the user can set up isolated cpus via cpuset and nohz_full in
> such a way that leaves no housekeeping CPU (i.e. no CPU that is neither
> domain isolated nor nohz full). This can be a problem for other
> subsystems (e.g. the timer wheel imgration).
>
> Prevent this configuration by blocking any assignation that would cause
> the union of domain isolated cpus and nohz_full to covers all CPUs.
>
> Acked-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Gabriele Monaco <gmonaco@redhat.com>
> ---
>   kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c | 57 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>   1 file changed, 57 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c b/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c
> index 6e3f44ffaa21..7b66ccedbc53 100644
> --- a/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c
> +++ b/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c
> @@ -1275,6 +1275,19 @@ static void isolated_cpus_update(int old_prs, int new_prs, struct cpumask *xcpus
>   		cpumask_andnot(isolated_cpus, isolated_cpus, xcpus);
>   }
>   
> +/*
> + * isolated_cpus_should_update - Returns if the isolated_cpus mask needs update
> + * @prs: new or old partition_root_state
> + * @parent: parent cpuset
> + * Return: true if isolated_cpus needs modification, false otherwise
> + */
> +static bool isolated_cpus_should_update(int prs, struct cpuset *parent)
> +{
> +	if (!parent)
> +		parent = &top_cpuset;
> +	return prs != parent->partition_root_state;
> +}
> +
>   /*
>    * partition_xcpus_add - Add new exclusive CPUs to partition
>    * @new_prs: new partition_root_state
> @@ -1339,6 +1352,36 @@ static bool partition_xcpus_del(int old_prs, struct cpuset *parent,
>   	return isolcpus_updated;
>   }
>   
> +/*
> + * isolcpus_nohz_conflict - check for isolated & nohz_full conflicts
> + * @new_cpus: cpu mask for cpus that are going to be isolated
> + * Return: true if there is conflict, false otherwise
> + *
> + * If nohz_full is enabled and we have isolated CPUs, their combination must
> + * still leave housekeeping CPUs.
> + */
> +static bool isolcpus_nohz_conflict(struct cpumask *new_cpus)
> +{
> +	cpumask_var_t full_hk_cpus;
> +	int res = false;
> +
> +	if (!housekeeping_enabled(HK_TYPE_KERNEL_NOISE))
> +		return false;
> +
> +	if (!alloc_cpumask_var(&full_hk_cpus, GFP_KERNEL))
> +		return true;
> +
> +	cpumask_and(full_hk_cpus, housekeeping_cpumask(HK_TYPE_KERNEL_NOISE),
> +		    housekeeping_cpumask(HK_TYPE_DOMAIN));
> +	cpumask_andnot(full_hk_cpus, full_hk_cpus, isolated_cpus);
> +	cpumask_and(full_hk_cpus, full_hk_cpus, cpu_online_mask);
> +	if (!cpumask_weight_andnot(full_hk_cpus, new_cpus))
> +		res = true;
> +
> +	free_cpumask_var(full_hk_cpus);
> +	return res;
> +}
> +
The check could probably be further optimized. This check will need to 
be updated when the relationship between isolated CPUs and nohz_full 
CPUs changes in the future. It does get the job done for now.
>   static void update_exclusion_cpumasks(bool isolcpus_updated)
>   {
>   	int ret;
> @@ -1464,6 +1507,9 @@ static int remote_partition_enable(struct cpuset *cs, int new_prs,
>   	if (!cpumask_intersects(tmp->new_cpus, cpu_active_mask) ||
>   	    cpumask_subset(top_cpuset.effective_cpus, tmp->new_cpus))
>   		return PERR_INVCPUS;
> +	if (isolated_cpus_should_update(new_prs, NULL) &&
> +	    isolcpus_nohz_conflict(tmp->new_cpus))
> +		return PERR_HKEEPING;
>   
>   	spin_lock_irq(&callback_lock);
>   	isolcpus_updated = partition_xcpus_add(new_prs, NULL, tmp->new_cpus);
> @@ -1563,6 +1609,9 @@ static void remote_cpus_update(struct cpuset *cs, struct cpumask *xcpus,
>   		else if (cpumask_intersects(tmp->addmask, subpartitions_cpus) ||
>   			 cpumask_subset(top_cpuset.effective_cpus, tmp->addmask))
>   			cs->prs_err = PERR_NOCPUS;
> +		else if (isolated_cpus_should_update(prs, NULL) &&
> +			 isolcpus_nohz_conflict(tmp->addmask))
> +			cs->prs_err = PERR_HKEEPING;
>   		if (cs->prs_err)
>   			goto invalidate;
>   	}
> @@ -1914,6 +1963,12 @@ static int update_parent_effective_cpumask(struct cpuset *cs, int cmd,
>   			return err;
>   	}
>   
> +	if (deleting && isolated_cpus_should_update(new_prs, parent) &&
> +	    isolcpus_nohz_conflict(tmp->delmask)) {
> +		cs->prs_err = PERR_HKEEPING;
> +		return PERR_HKEEPING;
> +	}
> +
>   	/*
>   	 * Change the parent's effective_cpus & effective_xcpus (top cpuset
>   	 * only).
> @@ -2934,6 +2989,8 @@ static int update_prstate(struct cpuset *cs, int new_prs)
>   		 * Need to update isolated_cpus.
>   		 */
>   		isolcpus_updated = true;
> +		if (isolcpus_nohz_conflict(cs->effective_xcpus))
> +			err = PERR_HKEEPING;
>   	} else {
>   		/*
>   		 * Switching back to member is always allowed even if it
Acked-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>


  reply	other threads:[~2025-08-12 15:41 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-08-08 16:01 [PATCH v11 0/8] timers: Exclude isolated cpus from timer migration Gabriele Monaco
2025-08-08 16:01 ` [PATCH v11 1/8] timers/migration: Postpone online/offline callbacks registration to late initcall Gabriele Monaco
2025-08-08 16:01 ` [PATCH v11 2/8] timers: Rename tmigr 'online' bit to 'available' Gabriele Monaco
2025-08-08 16:01 ` [PATCH v11 3/8] timers: Add the available mask in timer migration Gabriele Monaco
2025-08-08 16:01 ` [PATCH v11 4/8] timers: Use scoped_guard when setting/clearing the tmigr available flag Gabriele Monaco
2025-08-08 16:01 ` [PATCH v11 5/8] cgroup/cpuset: Rename update_unbound_workqueue_cpumask() to update_exclusion_cpumasks() Gabriele Monaco
2025-08-08 16:01 ` [PATCH v11 6/8] sched/isolation: Force housekeeping if isolcpus and nohz_full don't leave any Gabriele Monaco
2025-08-12 15:29   ` Waiman Long
2025-09-02 12:19   ` Frederic Weisbecker
2025-08-08 16:01 ` [PATCH v11 7/8] cgroup/cpuset: Fail if isolated and nohz_full don't leave any housekeeping Gabriele Monaco
2025-08-12 15:40   ` Waiman Long [this message]
2025-08-12 16:41   ` Waiman Long
2025-08-08 16:01 ` [PATCH v11 8/8] timers: Exclude isolated cpus from timer migration Gabriele Monaco
2025-08-12 17:20   ` Waiman Long
2025-08-13 15:20     ` Gabriele Monaco
2025-09-01 12:41   ` Frederic Weisbecker
2025-09-01 13:48     ` Gabriele Monaco
2025-09-01 21:11       ` Frederic Weisbecker
2025-09-02 11:08         ` Gabriele Monaco
2025-09-02 12:45           ` Frederic Weisbecker
2025-09-08  8:35             ` Gabriele Monaco
2025-08-27 19:52 ` [PATCH v11 0/8] " John B. Wyatt IV

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=16908a7d-2329-475f-b932-91ea5c9cc02e@redhat.com \
    --to=llong@redhat.com \
    --cc=anna-maria@linutronix.de \
    --cc=frederic@kernel.org \
    --cc=gmonaco@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®