From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
To: Michael Kelley <mhklinux@outlook.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"peterz@infradead.org" <peterz@infradead.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>,
"x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Question about num_possible_cpus() and cpu_possible_mask
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2024 10:16:58 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZvpsikythXnvZ7V_@J2N7QTR9R3> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <SN6PR02MB4157210CC36B2593F8572E5ED4692@SN6PR02MB4157.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 04:04:33AM +0000, Michael Kelley wrote:
> Question: Is there any intention to guarantee that the cpu_possible_mask is
> "dense", in that all bit positions 0 thru (nr_cpu_ids - 1) are set, with no
> "holes"? If that were true, then num_possible_cpus() would be equal to
> nr_cpu_ids.
>
> x86 always sets up cpu_possible_mask as dense, as does ARM64 with ACPI.
> But it appears there are errors cases on ARM64 with DeviceTree where this
> is not the case. I haven't looked at other architectures.
>
> There's evidence both ways:
> 1) A somewhat recent report[1] on SPARC where cpu_possible_mask
> isn't dense, and there's code assuming that it is dense. This report
> got me thinking about the question.
>
> 2) setup_nr_cpu_ids() in kernel/smp.c is coded to *not* assume it is dense
>
> 3) But there are several places throughout the kernel that do something like
> the following, which assumes they are dense:
>
> array = kcalloc(num_possible_cpus(), sizeof(<some struct>), GFP_KERNEL);
> ....
> index into "array" with smp_processor_id()
>
> On balance, I'm assuming that there's no requirement for cpu_possible_mask
> to be dense, and code like #3 above is technically wrong. It should be
> using nr_cpu_ids instead of num_possible_cpus(), which is also faster.
> We get away with it 99.99% of the time because all (or almost all?)
> architectures populate cpu_possible_mask as dense.
>
> There are 6 places in Hyper-V specific code that do #3. And it works because
> Hyper-V code only runs on x86 and ARM64 where cpu_possible_mask is
> always dense.
Maybe that happens be be true under Hyper-V, but in general
cpu_possible_mask is not always dense on arm64, and we've had the change
core code to handle that in the past, e.g.
bc75e99983df1efd ("rcu: Correctly handle sparse possible cpu")
> But in the interest of correctness and robustness against
> future changes, I'm planning to fix the Hyper-V code.
To me, that sounds like the right thing to do.
Mark.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-09-30 9:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-09-25 4:04 Michael Kelley
2024-09-30 7:56 ` Peter Zijlstra
2024-09-30 9:06 ` Thomas Gleixner
2024-09-30 19:33 ` Michael Kelley
2024-09-30 9:16 ` Mark Rutland [this message]
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=ZvpsikythXnvZ7V_@J2N7QTR9R3 \
--to=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mhklinux@outlook.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--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
Powered by JetHome