From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Chuyi Zhou <zhouchuyi@bytedance.com>
Cc: tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, luto@kernel.org,
paulmck@kernel.org, muchun.song@linux.dev, bp@alien8.de,
dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/11] smp: Use on-stack cpumask in smp_call_function_many_cond
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2026 10:51:17 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260205095117.GH232055@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260203112401.3889029-5-zhouchuyi@bytedance.com>
On Tue, Feb 03, 2026 at 07:23:54PM +0800, Chuyi Zhou wrote:
> This patch use on-stack cpumask to replace percpu cfd cpumask in
> smp_call_function_many_cond(). alloc_cpumask_var() may fail when
> CONFIG_CPUMASK_OFFSTACK is enabled. In such extreme case, fall back to
> cfd->cpumask. This is a preparation for the next patch.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chuyi Zhou <zhouchuyi@bytedance.com>
> ---
> kernel/smp.c | 22 +++++++++++++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/smp.c b/kernel/smp.c
> index f572716c3c7d..35948afced2e 100644
> --- a/kernel/smp.c
> +++ b/kernel/smp.c
> @@ -805,11 +805,17 @@ static void smp_call_function_many_cond(const struct cpumask *mask,
> int cpu, last_cpu, this_cpu = smp_processor_id();
> struct call_function_data *cfd;
> bool wait = scf_flags & SCF_WAIT;
> + bool preemptible_wait = true;
> + cpumask_var_t cpumask_stack;
> + struct cpumask *cpumask;
> int nr_cpus = 0;
> bool run_remote = false;
>
> lockdep_assert_preemption_disabled();
>
> + if (!alloc_cpumask_var(&cpumask_stack, GFP_ATOMIC))
> + preemptible_wait = false;
> +
> /*
> * Can deadlock when called with interrupts disabled.
> * We allow cpu's that are not yet online though, as no one else can
> @@ -831,15 +837,18 @@ static void smp_call_function_many_cond(const struct cpumask *mask,
> /* Check if we need remote execution, i.e., any CPU excluding this one. */
> if (cpumask_any_and_but(mask, cpu_online_mask, this_cpu) < nr_cpu_ids) {
> cfd = this_cpu_ptr(&cfd_data);
> - cpumask_and(cfd->cpumask, mask, cpu_online_mask);
> - __cpumask_clear_cpu(this_cpu, cfd->cpumask);
> +
> + cpumask = preemptible_wait ? cpumask_stack : cfd->cpumask;
> +
> + cpumask_and(cpumask, mask, cpu_online_mask);
> + __cpumask_clear_cpu(this_cpu, cpumask);
>
> cpumask_clear(cfd->cpumask_ipi);
> - for_each_cpu(cpu, cfd->cpumask) {
> + for_each_cpu(cpu, cpumask) {
> call_single_data_t *csd = per_cpu_ptr(cfd->csd, cpu);
>
> if (cond_func && !cond_func(cpu, info)) {
> - __cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, cfd->cpumask);
> + __cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, cpumask);
> continue;
> }
>
> @@ -890,13 +899,16 @@ static void smp_call_function_many_cond(const struct cpumask *mask,
> }
>
> if (run_remote && wait) {
> - for_each_cpu(cpu, cfd->cpumask) {
> + for_each_cpu(cpu, cpumask) {
> call_single_data_t *csd;
>
> csd = per_cpu_ptr(cfd->csd, cpu);
> csd_lock_wait(csd);
> }
> }
> +
> + if (preemptible_wait)
> + free_cpumask_var(cpumask_stack);
> }
*sigh*, even if you don't break RT, this is quite terrible, what is
wrong with something like so?
---
--- a/kernel/smp.c
+++ b/kernel/smp.c
@@ -802,19 +802,18 @@ static void smp_call_function_many_cond(
unsigned int scf_flags,
smp_cond_func_t cond_func)
{
+ struct call_function_data *cfd = this_cpu_ptr(&cfd_data);
int cpu, last_cpu, this_cpu = smp_processor_id();
- struct call_function_data *cfd;
+ struct cpumask *cpumask = cfd->cpumask;
bool wait = scf_flags & SCF_WAIT;
- bool preemptible_wait = true;
cpumask_var_t cpumask_stack;
- struct cpumask *cpumask;
int nr_cpus = 0;
bool run_remote = false;
lockdep_assert_preemption_disabled();
if (!alloc_cpumask_var(&cpumask_stack, GFP_ATOMIC))
- preemptible_wait = false;
+ cpumask = cpumask_stack;
/*
* Can deadlock when called with interrupts disabled.
@@ -836,10 +835,6 @@ static void smp_call_function_many_cond(
/* Check if we need remote execution, i.e., any CPU excluding this one. */
if (cpumask_any_and_but(mask, cpu_online_mask, this_cpu) < nr_cpu_ids) {
- cfd = this_cpu_ptr(&cfd_data);
-
- cpumask = preemptible_wait ? cpumask_stack : cfd->cpumask;
-
cpumask_and(cpumask, mask, cpu_online_mask);
__cpumask_clear_cpu(this_cpu, cpumask);
@@ -907,8 +902,7 @@ static void smp_call_function_many_cond(
}
}
- if (preemptible_wait)
- free_cpumask_var(cpumask_stack);
+ free_cpumask_var(cpumask_stack);
}
/**
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-02-05 9:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-02-03 11:23 [PATCH 00/11] Allow preemption during IPI completion waiting to improve real-time performance Chuyi Zhou
2026-02-03 11:23 ` [PATCH 01/11] smp: Disable preemption explicitly in __csd_lock_wait Chuyi Zhou
2026-02-05 6:05 ` Muchun Song
2026-02-03 11:23 ` [PATCH 02/11] smp: Enable preemption early in smp_call_function_single Chuyi Zhou
2026-02-05 3:55 ` Muchun Song
2026-02-05 9:34 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-02-03 11:23 ` [PATCH 03/11] smp: Remove get_cpu from smp_call_function_any Chuyi Zhou
2026-02-05 6:03 ` Muchun Song
2026-02-05 9:42 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-02-06 8:54 ` Chuyi Zhou
2026-02-03 11:23 ` [PATCH 04/11] smp: Use on-stack cpumask in smp_call_function_many_cond Chuyi Zhou
2026-02-05 9:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-02-06 9:07 ` Chuyi Zhou
2026-02-05 9:51 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2026-02-03 11:23 ` [PATCH 05/11] smp: Enable preemption early " Chuyi Zhou
2026-02-05 9:52 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-02-05 10:57 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-02-05 14:29 ` Chuyi Zhou
2026-02-05 14:59 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-02-06 8:43 ` Chuyi Zhou
2026-02-06 9:47 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-02-06 11:45 ` Chuyi Zhou
2026-02-09 7:56 ` Chuyi Zhou
2026-02-03 11:23 ` [PATCH 06/11] smp: Remove preempt_disable from smp_call_function Chuyi Zhou
2026-02-03 11:23 ` [PATCH 07/11] smp: Remove preempt_disable from on_each_cpu_cond_mask Chuyi Zhou
2026-02-03 11:23 ` [PATCH 08/11] scftorture: Remove preempt_disable in scftorture_invoke_one Chuyi Zhou
2026-02-03 11:23 ` [PATCH 09/11] x86/mm: Move flush_tlb_info back to the stack Chuyi Zhou
2026-02-03 11:24 ` [PATCH 10/11] x86/mm: Enable preemption during native_flush_tlb_multi Chuyi Zhou
2026-02-03 11:24 ` [PATCH 11/11] x86/mm: Enable preemption during flush_tlb_kernel_range Chuyi Zhou
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=20260205095117.GH232055@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=muchun.song@linux.dev \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=zhouchuyi@bytedance.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®