mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Sander Vanheule <sander@svanheule.net>
Cc: x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
	elver@google.com, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	vschneid@redhat.com, Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
	"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/5] cpumask: Fix invalid uniprocessor assumptions
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2022 13:38:40 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220702133840.943817a7694406a135bb48a9@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <cover.1656777646.git.sander@svanheule.net>

On Sat,  2 Jul 2022 18:08:23 +0200 Sander Vanheule <sander@svanheule.net> wrote:

> On uniprocessor builds, it is currently assumed that any cpumask will
> contain the single CPU: cpu0. This assumption is used to provide
> optimised implementations.
> 
> The current assumption also appears to be wrong, by ignoring the fact
> that users can provide empty cpumask-s. This can result in bugs as
> explained in [1].

It's a little unkind to send people off to some link to explain the
very core issue which this patchset addresses!  So I enhanced this
paragraph:

: The current assumption also appears to be wrong, by ignoring the fact that
: users can provide empty cpumasks.  This can result in bugs as explained in
: [1] - for_each_cpu() will run one iteration of the loop even when passed
: an empty cpumask.

> This series introduces some basic tests, and updates the optimisations
> for uniprocessor builds.
> 
> The x86 patch was written after the kernel test robot [2] ran into a
> failed build. I have tried to list the files potentially affected by the
> changes to cpumask.h, in an attempt to find any other cases that fail on
> !SMP. I've gone through some of the files manually, and ran a few cross
> builds, but nothing else popped up. I (build) checked about half of the
> potientally affected files, but I do not have the resources to do them
> all. I hope we can fix other issues if/when they pop up later.
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220530082552.46113-1-sander@svanheule.net/
> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/202206060858.wA0FOzRy-lkp@intel.com/


  parent reply	other threads:[~2022-07-02 20:38 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-07-02 16:08 Sander Vanheule
2022-07-02 16:08 ` [PATCH v4 1/5] x86/cacheinfo: move shared cache map definitions Sander Vanheule
2022-07-02 16:08 ` [PATCH v4 2/5] cpumask: Fix invalid uniprocessor mask assumption Sander Vanheule
2022-07-02 21:42   ` Yury Norov
2022-07-03 14:17     ` Sander Vanheule
2022-07-02 16:08 ` [PATCH v4 3/5] lib/test: Introduce cpumask KUnit test suite Sander Vanheule
2022-07-02 21:45   ` Yury Norov
2022-07-03  7:26     ` Sander Vanheule
2022-07-19 21:31   ` Maíra Canal
2022-07-20  5:24     ` David Gow
2022-07-20 12:43       ` Sander Vanheule
2022-07-20 12:47     ` Sander Vanheule
2022-07-02 16:08 ` [PATCH v4 4/5] cpumask: Add UP optimised for_each_*_cpu versions Sander Vanheule
2022-07-02 21:47   ` Yury Norov
2022-07-02 21:50     ` Yury Norov
2022-07-03  7:37       ` Sander Vanheule
2022-07-02 16:08 ` [PATCH v4 5/5] cpumask: Update cpumask_next_wrap() signature Sander Vanheule
2022-07-02 20:38 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2022-07-03  7:50   ` [PATCH v4 0/5] cpumask: Fix invalid uniprocessor assumptions Sander Vanheule
2022-07-03 20:39     ` Andrew Morton
2022-07-10  6:51       ` Sander Vanheule
2022-07-11 20:22         ` Andrew Morton

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=20220702133840.943817a7694406a135bb48a9@linux-foundation.org \
    --to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=bp@alien8.de \
    --cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=elver@google.com \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=sander@svanheule.net \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=vschneid@redhat.com \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    --cc=yury.norov@gmail.com \
    /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®