From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Dongli Zhang <dongli.zhang@oracle.com>, x86@kernel.org
Cc: mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com,
hpa@zytor.com, joe.jin@oracle.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
virtualization@lists.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] x86/vector: Fix vector leak during CPU offline
Date: Thu, 23 May 2024 21:52:46 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87a5kgfgq9.ffs@tglx> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240522220218.162423-1-dongli.zhang@oracle.com>
On Wed, May 22 2024 at 15:02, Dongli Zhang wrote:
> The absence of IRQD_MOVE_PCNTXT prevents immediate effectiveness of
> interrupt affinity reconfiguration via procfs. Instead, the change is
> deferred until the next instance of the interrupt being triggered on the
> original CPU.
>
> When the interrupt next triggers on the original CPU, the new affinity is
> enforced within __irq_move_irq(). A vector is allocated from the new CPU,
> but if the old vector on the original CPU remains online, it is not
> immediately reclaimed. Instead, apicd->move_in_progress is flagged, and the
> reclaiming process is delayed until the next trigger of the interrupt on
> the new CPU.
>
> Upon the subsequent triggering of the interrupt on the new CPU,
> irq_complete_move() adds a task to the old CPU's vector_cleanup list if it
> remains online. Subsequently, the timer on the old CPU iterates over its
> vector_cleanup list, reclaiming old vectors.
>
> However, a rare scenario arises if the old CPU is outgoing before the
> interrupt triggers again on the new CPU. The irq_force_complete_move() may
> not have the chance to be invoked on the outgoing CPU to reclaim the old
> apicd->prev_vector. This is because the interrupt isn't currently affine to
> the outgoing CPU, and irq_needs_fixup() returns false. Even though
> __vector_schedule_cleanup() is later called on the new CPU, it doesn't
> reclaim apicd->prev_vector; instead, it simply resets both
> apicd->move_in_progress and apicd->prev_vector to 0.
>
> As a result, the vector remains unreclaimed in vector_matrix, leading to a
> CPU vector leak.
>
> To address this issue, move the invocation of irq_force_complete_move()
> before the irq_needs_fixup() call to reclaim apicd->prev_vector, if the
> interrupt is currently or used to affine to the outgoing CPU. Additionally,
> reclaim the vector in __vector_schedule_cleanup() as well, following a
> warning message, although theoretically it should never see
> apicd->move_in_progress with apicd->prev_cpu pointing to an offline CPU.
Nice change log!
prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-05-23 19:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-05-22 22:02 [PATCH v2 1/1] x86/vector: Fix vector leak during CPU offline Dongli Zhang
2024-05-23 19:52 ` Thomas Gleixner [this message]
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=87a5kgfgq9.ffs@tglx \
--to=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=dongli.zhang@oracle.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=joe.jin@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=virtualization@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=x86@kernel.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).