mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Chuyi Zhou" <zhouchuyi@bytedance.com>
To: "Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@infradead.org>
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 05/11] smp: Enable preemption early in smp_call_function_many_cond
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2026 16:43:48 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <e4ce3ce4-7353-4bbe-8b74-fceab8a62093@bytedance.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260205145912.GM2995752@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>

Hi Peter,

在 2026/2/5 22:59, Peter Zijlstra 写道:
> On Thu, Feb 05, 2026 at 10:29:51PM +0800, Chuyi Zhou wrote:
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> 在 2026/2/5 18:57, Peter Zijlstra 写道:
>>> On Thu, Feb 05, 2026 at 10:52:36AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Feb 03, 2026 at 07:23:55PM +0800, Chuyi Zhou wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> +	/*
>>>>> +	 * Prevent the current CPU from going offline.
>>>>> +	 * Being migrated to another CPU and calling csd_lock_wait() may cause
>>>>> +	 * UAF due to smpcfd_dead_cpu() during the current CPU offline process.
>>>>> +	 */
>>>>> +	migrate_disable();
>>>>
>>>> This is horrible crap. migrate_disable() is *NOT* supposed to be used to
>>>> serialize cpu hotplug.
>>>
>>> This was too complicated or something?
>>>
>>
>> Now most callers of smp_call*() explicitly use preempt_disable(). IIUC,
>> if we want to use cpus_read_lock(), we first need to clean up all these
>> preempt_disable() calls.
>>
>> Maybe a stupid question: Why can't migrate_disable prevent CPU removal?
> 
> It can, but migrate_disable() is horrible, it should not be used if at
> all possible.


As you pointed out, using cpus_read_lock() is the simplest approach, and 
indeed, that was the first solution we considered.

However, 99% of callers have preemption disabled, some of them even 
invoking it within spin_locks (for example, we might trigger a TLB flush 
while holding pte spinlocks).

It's difficult for us to eliminate all these preempt_disable(), 
especially for callers that disable preemption for other purposes, 
making the use of cpus_read_lock almost impossible.

In our production environment, we observed that the overhead of 
csd_lock_wait can be as high as several milliseconds, and in extreme 
cases, even exceed 10ms+. Generally speaking, the time spent on 
csd_lock_wait far exceeds the overhead of sending the IPI.

Disabling preemption for the entire duration would obviously affect the 
preemption latency of high-priority tasks, which is unacceptable. This 
optimization primarily targets PREEMPT, although PREEMPT_RT can also 
benefit from it.

Compared to the cost of disabling preemption entirely, maybe using 
migrate_disable() here seems to be an acceptable trade-off.

  reply	other threads:[~2026-02-06  8:44 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
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 [this message]
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=e4ce3ce4-7353-4bbe-8b74-fceab8a62093@bytedance.com \
    --to=zhouchuyi@bytedance.com \
    --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=peterz@infradead.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®