lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Jun]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 1/5] sched/topology: Add check to backup comment about hotplug lock
On 14/06/18 15:18, Quentin Perret wrote:
> On Thursday 14 Jun 2018 at 16:11:18 (+0200), Juri Lelli wrote:
> > On 14/06/18 14:58, Quentin Perret wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > Hmm not sure if this can help but I think that rebuild_sched_domains()
> > > does _not_ take the hotplug lock before calling partition_sched_domains()
> > > when CONFIG_CPUSETS=n. But it does take it for CONFIG_CPUSETS=y.
> >
> > Did you mean cpuset_mutex?
>
> Nope, I really meant the cpu_hotplug_lock !
>
> With CONFIG_CPUSETS=n, rebuild_sched_domains() calls
> partition_sched_domains() directly:
>
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/include/linux/cpuset.h#L255
>
> But with CONFIG_CPUSETS=y, rebuild_sched_domains() calls,
> rebuild_sched_domains_locked(), which calls get_online_cpus() which
> calls cpus_read_lock(), which does percpu_down_read(&cpu_hotplug_lock).
> And all that happens before calling partition_sched_domains().

Ah, right!

> So yeah, the point I was trying to make is that there is an inconsistency
> here, maybe for a good reason ? Maybe related to the issue you're seeing ?

The config that came with the 0day splat was indeed CONFIG_CPUSETS=n.

So, in this case IIUC we hit the !doms_new branch of partition_sched_
domains, which uses cpu_active_mask (and cpu_possible_mask indirectly).
Should this be still protected by the hotplug lock then?

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-06-14 16:32    [W:0.104 / U:1.628 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site