Re: [PATCH 06/23] rcu/nocbs: Allow runtime changes in RCU NOCBS cpumask

[Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>]

On 4/21/26 11:08 PM, sashiko-bot@kernel.org wrote:
> Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s):
> - [High] Dynamic RCU NOCB update attempts to de-offload online `rcu_nocbs=` CPUs, triggering a WARN_ON_ONCE and leaving isolation state inconsistent.
> --
>
> commit a58a92fdc96e43de871fd44a78e4e6da373179d5
> Author: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
>
> rcu/nocbs: Allow runtime changes in RCU NOCBS cpumask
>
> This commit enables dynamic runtime updates to the RCU NO-CB CPU offloading
> state when isolated CPUs are added or removed. It introduces a new helper,
> rcu_nocb_update_cpus(), which is called directly from housekeeping_update()
> to synchronize the offloaded CPUs with the HK_TYPE_KERNEL_NOISE cpumask.
>
>> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree_nocb.h b/kernel/rcu/tree_nocb.h
>> index 2d06dcb61f379..b2daba1e5cb98 100644
>> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree_nocb.h
>> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree_nocb.h
> [ ... ]
>> +void rcu_nocb_update_cpus(struct cpumask *cpumask)
>> +{
>> +	int cpu, ret;
>> +
>> +	if (!rcu_state.nocb_is_setup) {
>> +		pr_warn_once("Dynamic RCU NOCB cannot be enabled without nohz_full/rcu_nocbs kernel boot parameter!\n");
>> +		return;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	for_each_cpu_andnot(cpu, cpumask, rcu_nocb_mask) {
>> +		ret = rcu_nocb_cpu_offload(cpu);
>> +		if (WARN_ON_ONCE(ret))
>> +			return;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	for_each_cpu_andnot(cpu, rcu_nocb_mask, cpumask) {
>> +		ret = rcu_nocb_cpu_deoffload(cpu);
> What happens here if a system booted with explicit rcu_nocbs= CPUs, and
> later a user dynamically updates an isolated cpuset?
>
> It looks like this loop assumes the active rcu_nocb_mask should identically
> match the new isol_mask. If the boot-time rcu_nocbs= CPUs are not included
> in the new isolation mask, this loop will attempt to de-offload them.
>
> Because the cpuset subsystem is unaware of the independent rcu_nocbs= mask,
> wouldn't those original CPUs likely remain online?
>
Yes, the code should properly handle a pre-existing "rcu_nocbs" boot 
option with a different CPU list. I will update the patch to add a boot 
version of rcu_nocb_mask and make sure that CPUs that are in 
rcu_nocb_mask_boot will not be de-offloaded.
>> +		if (WARN_ON_ONCE(ret))
>> +			return;
> If rcu_nocb_cpu_deoffload() is called on an online CPU, it returns -EINVAL.
> Could this unconditionally trigger this WARN_ON_ONCE and abort the rest of
> the update loop?
It should only be called for an offline CPU. The WARN_ON_ONCE() is there 
to just catch unexpected bug in the code.
>
> If the loop aborts early, since housekeeping_update() already committed the
> new mask to housekeeping.cpumasks[], does this leave the system in a
> desynchronized state where the scheduler assumes CPUs are isolated but
> RCU callback offloading is not properly updated?

Any triggered WARN_ON_ONCE() is a bug that needs to be investigated and 
fixed.

Cheers,
Longman

>
>> +	}
>> +}