Re: [PATCH v5 5/6] cgroup/cpuset: Fail if isolated and nohz_full don't leave any housekeeping

[Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>]

(Sorry for the delay, I forgot to reply that one)

Le Fri, May 23, 2025 at 01:15:44PM +0200, Gabriele Monaco a écrit :
> On Tue, 2025-05-20 at 16:28 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > 
> > Apparently you can't trigger the same with isolcpus=0-6, for some
> > reason.
> > 
> > One last thing, nohz_full makes sure that we never offline the
> > timekeeper
> > (see tick_nohz_cpu_down()). The timekeeper also never shuts down its
> > tick
> > and therefore never go idle, from tmigr perspective, this way when a
> > nohz_full
> > CPU shuts down its tick, it makes sure that its global timers are
> > handled by
> > the timekeeper in last resort, because it's the last global migrator,
> > always
> > alive.
> > 
> > But if the timekeeper is HK_TYPE_DOMAIN, or isolated by cpuset, it
> > will go out
> > of the tmigr hierarchy, breaking the guarantee to have a live global
> > migrator
> > for nohz_full.
> > 
> > That one is a bit more tricky to solve. The easiest is to forbid the
> > timekeeper
> > from ever being made unavailable. It is also possible to migrate the
> > timekeeping duty
> > to another common housekeeper.
> > 
> > We probably need to do the latter...
> 
> I'm thinking about this again, is it really worth the extra complexity?
> 
> The tick CPU is already set as the boot CPU and if the user requests it
> as nohz_full, that's not accepted.

Actually that's possible, unfortunately...

> In my understanding, this typically happens on CPU0 and this CPU is
> kinda special and is advised to stay as housekeeping. As far as I
> understand, when nohz_full is enabled, the tick CPU cannot change.

It can change, fortunately on early boot.

> 
> Said that, I'd reconsider force keeping the tick CPU in the hierarchy
> no matter if we isolate it or not when nohz_full is active (e.g. what
> you mentioned as the /easy/ way).
> We'd not prevent domain isolation (as the user requested), but allow a
> bit more noise just on that CPU for the sake of keeping things simple
> while not falling into dangerous corner cases.
> If that's still a problem for the user, they are probably better off
> either selecting a different mask or setting nohz_full consistently
> (I'm still wondering how common a scenario this is).
> 
> Am I missing something here?

Agreed, forcing the tick CPU to stay in the hierarchy when nohz_full is
enabled is the easiest.

Thanks.

> 
> Thanks,
> Gabriele
> 

-- 
Frederic Weisbecker
SUSE Labs