Re: [PATCH 08/23] arm64: topology: Use RCU to protect access to HK_TYPE_TICK cpumask

[Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>]

Le Mon, Apr 20, 2026 at 11:03:36PM -0400, Waiman Long a écrit :
> As the HK_TYPE_TICK cpumask is going to be changeable at run time, we
> need to use RCU to protect access to the cpumask to prevent it from
> going away in the middle of the operation.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
> ---
>  arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c | 17 ++++++++++++++---
>  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c
> index b32f13358fbb..48f150801689 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c
> @@ -173,6 +173,7 @@ void arch_cpu_idle_enter(void)
>  	if (!amu_fie_cpu_supported(cpu))
>  		return;
>  
> +	guard(rcu)();
>  	/* Kick in AMU update but only if one has not happened already */
>  	if (housekeeping_cpu(cpu, HK_TYPE_TICK) &&
>  	    time_is_before_jiffies(per_cpu(cpu_amu_samples.last_scale_update,
>  	cpu)))

This is called with IRQs disabled in the current CPU that is online so it's
already guaranteed to be stable.


> @@ -187,11 +188,16 @@ int arch_freq_get_on_cpu(int cpu)
>  	unsigned int start_cpu = cpu;
>  	unsigned long last_update;
>  	unsigned int freq = 0;
> +	bool hk_cpu;
>  	u64 scale;
>  
>  	if (!amu_fie_cpu_supported(cpu) || !arch_scale_freq_ref(cpu))
>  		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>  
> +	scoped_guard(rcu) {
> +		hk_cpu = housekeeping_cpu(cpu, HK_TYPE_TICK);
> +	}
> +
>  	while (1) {
>  
>  		amu_sample = per_cpu_ptr(&cpu_amu_samples, cpu);
> @@ -204,16 +210,21 @@ int arch_freq_get_on_cpu(int cpu)
>  		 * (and thus freq scale), if available, for given policy: this boils
>  		 * down to identifying an active cpu within the same freq domain, if any.
>  		 */
> -		if (!housekeeping_cpu(cpu, HK_TYPE_TICK) ||
> +		if (!hk_cpu ||
>  		    time_is_before_jiffies(last_update + msecs_to_jiffies(AMU_SAMPLE_EXP_MS))) {
>  			struct cpufreq_policy *policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpu);
> +			bool hk_intersects;
>  			int ref_cpu;
>  
>  			if (!policy)
>  				return -EINVAL;
>  
> -			if (!cpumask_intersects(policy->related_cpus,
> -						housekeeping_cpumask(HK_TYPE_TICK))) {
> +			scoped_guard(rcu) {
> +				hk_intersects = cpumask_intersects(policy->related_cpus,
> +							housekeeping_cpumask(HK_TYPE_TICK));
> +			}
> +
> +			if (!hk_intersects) {
>  				cpufreq_cpu_put(policy);
>  				return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>  			}

Ok so this is racy but it's fine because:

This function is only used by cpufreq with either cpufreq_policy_write or
cpufreq_policy_read held (that is, struct cpufreq_policy::rwsem).

And that rwsem is write held on cpufreq_online() -> cpufreq_policy_online() and
also offline to guarantee the policy->cpus and policy->cpu stability.

Therefore housekeeping_cpumask() should only deal with stable online CPUs here. So
even if the housekeeping mask can be changed concurrently, those CPUs can't
appear or disappear from it.

Would be worth adding a comment about that.

-- 
Frederic Weisbecker
SUSE Labs