mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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);
 }
 
 /**

  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®