From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Daniel Wagner <wagi@monom.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/rt: Do not do push/pull when there is only one CPU
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2017 14:55:55 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171202135555.GW3326@worktop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171202125330.xrxspjeedbpr4hk5@linutronix.de>
On Sat, Dec 02, 2017 at 01:53:31PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2017-12-01 13:32:22 [-0500], Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >
> > Daniel Wagner reported a crash on the beaglebone black. This is a
> > single CPU architecture, and does not have a functional:
> > arch_send_call_function_single_ipi() and can crash if that is called.
> >
> > As it only has one CPU, it shouldn't be called, but if the kernel is
> > compiled for SMP, the push/pull RT scheduling logic now calls it for
> > irq_work if the one CPU is overloaded, it can use that function to call
> > itself and crash the kernel.
> >
> > There's no reason for the push/pull logic to even be called if there's
> > only one CPU online. Have it bail if it sees that's the case.
> >
> > Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/8c913cc2-b2e3-8c2e-e503-aff1428f8ff5@monom.org
> > Fixes: 4bdced5c9 ("sched/rt: Simplify the IPI based RT balancing logic")
> > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> > Reported-by: Daniel Wagner <wagi@monom.org>
> > ---
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/rt.c b/kernel/sched/rt.c
> > index 4056c19ca3f0..50d2f8179f70 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/rt.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/rt.c
> > @@ -1784,6 +1784,10 @@ static int push_rt_task(struct rq *rq)
> > if (!rq->rt.overloaded)
> > return 0;
> >
> > + /* If we are the only CPU, don't bother */
> > + if (num_online_cpus() == 1)
> > + return 0;
> > +
>
> what about a check next to sched_feat(RT_PUSH_IPI)? I don't know if this
> is a hot path or not (due to bitmap_weight). If it is, then I would
> suggest something like a jump-label which is enabled if more than one
> CPU has been enabled on boot.
Yeah good point; bitmap_weight can be quite expensive.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-12-02 13:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-12-01 18:32 [PATCH] sched/rt: Do not do push/pull when there is only one CPU Steven Rostedt
2017-12-02 12:53 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2017-12-02 13:55 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2017-12-02 17:12 ` Steven Rostedt
2017-12-02 18:05 ` Steven Rostedt
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=20171202135555.GW3326@worktop \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=wagi@monom.org \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).