Le Thu, Dec 12, 2024 at 10:42:14AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney a écrit :
> From: Frederic Weisbecker <frede...@kernel.org>
> 
> After a CPU has set itself offline and before it eventually calls
> rcutree_report_cpu_dead(), there are still opportunities for callbacks
> to be enqueued, for example from an IRQ. When that happens on NOCB, the
> rcuog wake-up is deferred through an IPI to an online CPU in order not
> to call into the scheduler and risk arming the RT-bandwidth after
> hrtimers have been migrated out and disabled.
> 
> But performing a synchronized IPI from an IRQ is buggy as reported in
> the following scenario:
> 
>       WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 26 at kernel/smp.c:633 smp_call_function_single
>       Modules linked in: rcutorture torture
>       CPU: 1 UID: 0 PID: 26 Comm: migration/1 Not tainted 
> 6.11.0-rc1-00012-g9139f93209d1 #1
>       Stopper: multi_cpu_stop+0x0/0x320 <- __stop_cpus+0xd0/0x120
>       RIP: 0010:smp_call_function_single
>       <IRQ>
>       swake_up_one_online
>       __call_rcu_nocb_wake
>       __call_rcu_common
>       ? rcu_torture_one_read
>       call_timer_fn
>       __run_timers
>       run_timer_softirq
>       handle_softirqs
>       irq_exit_rcu
>       ? tick_handle_periodic
>       sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt
>       </IRQ>
> 
> The periodic tick must be shutdown when the CPU is offline, just like is
> done for oneshot tick. This must be fixed but this is not enough:
> softirqs can happen on any hardirq tail and reproduce the above scenario.
> 
> Fix this with introducing a special deferred rcuog wake up mode when the
> CPU is offline. This deferred wake up doesn't arm any timer and simply
> wait for rcu_report_cpu_dead() to be called in order to flush any
> pending rcuog wake up.
> 
> Reported-by: kernel test robot <oliver.s...@intel.com>
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-lkp/202409231644.4c55582d-...@intel.com
> Fixes: 9139f93209d1 ("rcu/nocb: Fix RT throttling hrtimer armed from offline 
> CPU")
> Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frede...@kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paul...@kernel.org>

You can drop this patch, it has been replaced with another version upstream.

Thanks!

Reply via email to