Re: [PATCH v4 10/13] task_isolation: don't interrupt CPUs with tick_nohz_full_kick_cpu()

Frederic Weisbecker
2020-10-01T14:44:59Z

On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 02:57:33PM +0000, Alex Belits wrote:
> From: Yuri Norov <ynorov@marvell.com>
>
> For nohz_full CPUs the desirable behavior is to receive interrupts
> generated by tick_nohz_full_kick_cpu(). But for hard isolation it's
> obviously not desirable because it breaks isolation.
>
> This patch adds check for it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yuri Norov <ynorov@marvell.com>
> [abelits@marvell.com: updated, only exclude CPUs running isolated tasks]
> Signed-off-by: Alex Belits <abelits@marvell.com>
> ---
> kernel/time/tick-sched.c | 4 +++-
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/time/tick-sched.c b/kernel/time/tick-sched.c
> index 6e4cd8459f05..2f82a6daf8fc 100644
> --- a/kernel/time/tick-sched.c
> +++ b/kernel/time/tick-sched.c
> @@ -20,6 +20,7 @@
> #include <linux/sched/clock.h>
> #include <linux/sched/stat.h>
> #include <linux/sched/nohz.h>
> +#include <linux/isolation.h>
> #include <linux/module.h>
> #include <linux/irq_work.h>
> #include <linux/posix-timers.h>
> @@ -268,7 +269,8 @@ static void tick_nohz_full_kick(void)
> */
> void tick_nohz_full_kick_cpu(int cpu)
> {
> - if (!tick_nohz_full_cpu(cpu))
> + smp_rmb();

What is it ordering?

> + if (!tick_nohz_full_cpu(cpu) || task_isolation_on_cpu(cpu))
> return;

You can't simply ignore an IPI. There is always a reason for a nohz_full CPU
to be kicked. Something triggered a tick dependency. It can be posix cpu timers
for example, or anything.

>
> irq_work_queue_on(&per_cpu(nohz_full_kick_work, cpu), cpu);
> --
> 2.26.2
>