On Tue, 2025-09-23 at 11:17 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> Le Tue, Sep 02, 2025 at 11:44:00AM -0400, Waiman Long a écrit :
> >
> > On 8/29/25 11:48 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > From: Gabriele Monaco <gmonaco@redhat.com>
> > >
> > > Currently the user can set up isolated cpus via cpuset and nohz_full in
> > > such a way that leaves no housekeeping CPU (i.e. no CPU that is neither
> > > domain isolated nor nohz full). This can be a problem for other
> > > subsystems (e.g. the timer wheel imgration).
> > >
> > > Prevent this configuration by blocking any assignation that would cause
> > > the union of domain isolated cpus and nohz_full to covers all CPUs.
> > >
> > > Acked-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: Gabriele Monaco <gmonaco@redhat.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
> > > ---
> > > kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c | 57 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > 1 file changed, 57 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c b/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c
> > > index df1dfacf5f9d..8260dd699fd8 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/cgroup/cpuset.c
> > > @@ -1275,6 +1275,19 @@ static void isolated_cpus_update(int old_prs, int
> > > new_prs, struct cpumask *xcpus
> > > cpumask_andnot(isolated_cpus, isolated_cpus, xcpus);
> > > }
> > > +/*
> > > + * isolated_cpus_should_update - Returns if the isolated_cpus mask needs
> > > update
> > > + * @prs: new or old partition_root_state
> > > + * @parent: parent cpuset
> > > + * Return: true if isolated_cpus needs modification, false otherwise
> > > + */
> > > +static bool isolated_cpus_should_update(int prs, struct cpuset *parent)
> > > +{
> > > + if (!parent)
> > > + parent = &top_cpuset;
> > > + return prs != parent->partition_root_state;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > /*
> > > * partition_xcpus_add - Add new exclusive CPUs to partition
> > > * @new_prs: new partition_root_state
> > > @@ -1339,6 +1352,36 @@ static bool partition_xcpus_del(int old_prs, struct
> > > cpuset *parent,
> > > return isolcpus_updated;
> > > }
> > > +/*
> > > + * isolcpus_nohz_conflict - check for isolated & nohz_full conflicts
> > > + * @new_cpus: cpu mask for cpus that are going to be isolated
> > > + * Return: true if there is conflict, false otherwise
> > > + *
> > > + * If nohz_full is enabled and we have isolated CPUs, their combination
> > > must
> > > + * still leave housekeeping CPUs.
> > > + */
> > > +static bool isolcpus_nohz_conflict(struct cpumask *new_cpus)
> > > +{
> > > + cpumask_var_t full_hk_cpus;
> > > + int res = false;
> > > +
> > > + if (!housekeeping_enabled(HK_TYPE_KERNEL_NOISE))
> > > + return false;
> > > +
> > > + if (!alloc_cpumask_var(&full_hk_cpus, GFP_KERNEL))
> > > + return true;
> > > +
> > > + cpumask_and(full_hk_cpus,
> > > housekeeping_cpumask(HK_TYPE_KERNEL_NOISE),
> > > + housekeeping_cpumask(HK_TYPE_DOMAIN));
> > > + cpumask_andnot(full_hk_cpus, full_hk_cpus, isolated_cpus);
> > > + cpumask_and(full_hk_cpus, full_hk_cpus, cpu_online_mask);
> > > + if (!cpumask_weight_andnot(full_hk_cpus, new_cpus))
> > > + res = true;
> > > +
> > > + free_cpumask_var(full_hk_cpus);
> > > + return res;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > static void update_housekeeping_cpumask(bool isolcpus_updated)
> > > {
> > > int ret;
> > > @@ -1453,6 +1496,9 @@ static int remote_partition_enable(struct cpuset
> > > *cs, int new_prs,
> > > if (!cpumask_intersects(tmp->new_cpus, cpu_active_mask) ||
> > > cpumask_subset(top_cpuset.effective_cpus, tmp->new_cpus))
> > > return PERR_INVCPUS;
> > > + if (isolated_cpus_should_update(new_prs, NULL) &&
> > > + isolcpus_nohz_conflict(tmp->new_cpus))
> > > + return PERR_HKEEPING;
> > > spin_lock_irq(&callback_lock);
> > > isolcpus_updated = partition_xcpus_add(new_prs, NULL, tmp-
> > > >new_cpus);
> > > @@ -1552,6 +1598,9 @@ static void remote_cpus_update(struct cpuset *cs,
> > > struct cpumask *xcpus,
> > > else if (cpumask_intersects(tmp->addmask,
> > > subpartitions_cpus) ||
> > > cpumask_subset(top_cpuset.effective_cpus, tmp-
> > > >addmask))
> > > cs->prs_err = PERR_NOCPUS;
> > > + else if (isolated_cpus_should_update(prs, NULL) &&
> > > + isolcpus_nohz_conflict(tmp->addmask))
> > > + cs->prs_err = PERR_HKEEPING;
> > > if (cs->prs_err)
> > > goto invalidate;
> > > }
> > > @@ -1904,6 +1953,12 @@ static int update_parent_effective_cpumask(struct
> > > cpuset *cs, int cmd,
> > > return err;
> > > }
> > > + if (deleting && isolated_cpus_should_update(new_prs, parent) &&
> > > + isolcpus_nohz_conflict(tmp->delmask)) {
> > > + cs->prs_err = PERR_HKEEPING;
> > > + return PERR_HKEEPING;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > /*
> > > * Change the parent's effective_cpus & effective_xcpus (top
> > > cpuset
> > > * only).
> > > @@ -2924,6 +2979,8 @@ static int update_prstate(struct cpuset *cs, int
> > > new_prs)
> > > * Need to update isolated_cpus.
> > > */
> > > isolcpus_updated = true;
> > > + if (isolcpus_nohz_conflict(cs->effective_xcpus))
> > > + err = PERR_HKEEPING;
> > > } else {
> > > /*
> > > * Switching back to member is always allowed even if it
> >
> > In both remote_cpus_update() and update_parent_effective_cpumask(), some new
> > CPUs can be added to the isolation list while other CPUs can be removed from
> > it. So isolcpus_nohz_conflict() should include both set in its analysis to
> > avoid false positive. Essentally, if the CPUs removed from the isolated_cpus
> > intersect with the nohz_full housekeeping mask, there is no conflict.
>
> I assume this was fixed in latest Gabriele posting?
Yes, this is basically what happens in these lines in [1]:
> +static bool isolated_cpus_can_update(struct cpumask *add_cpus,
> + struct cpumask *del_cpus)
> +{
> ...
> + if (del_cpus && cpumask_weight_and(del_cpus,
> + housekeeping_cpumask(HK_TYPE_KERNEL_NOISE)))
> + return true;
Thanks,
Gabriele
[1] - https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20250917161958.178925-8-gmonaco@redhat.com
>
> Thanks.
>
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Longman
> >