Le Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 10:50:00AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner a écrit :
> On Mon, Apr 20 2026 at 23:03, Waiman Long wrote:
> > + /*
> > + * To properly enable/disable nohz_full dynticks for the affected CPUs,
> > + * the new nohz_full CPUs have to be copied to tick_nohz_full_mask and
> > + * ct_cpu_track_user/ct_cpu_untrack_user() will have to be called
> > + * for those CPUs that have their states changed. Those CPUs should be
> > + * in an offline state.
> > + */
> > + for_each_cpu_andnot(cpu, cpumask, tick_nohz_full_mask) {
> > + WARN_ON_ONCE(cpu_online(cpu));
> > + ct_cpu_track_user(cpu);
> > + cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, tick_nohz_full_mask);
> > + }
> > +
> > + for_each_cpu_andnot(cpu, tick_nohz_full_mask, cpumask) {
> > + WARN_ON_ONCE(cpu_online(cpu));
> > + ct_cpu_untrack_user(cpu);
> > + cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, tick_nohz_full_mask);
> > + }
> > +}
>
> So this writes to tick_nohz_full_mask while other CPUs can access
> it. That's just wrong and I'm not at all interested in the resulting
> KCSAN warnings.
>
> tick_nohz_full_mask needs to become a RCU protected pointer, which is
> updated once the new mask is established in a separately allocated one.
How about just dropping tick_nohz_full_mask that is just
~housekeeping_cpumask(HK_TYPE_KERNEL_NOISE) which itself is becoming RCU
protected in this patchset?
Thanks.
>
> Thanks,
>
> tglx
>
>
--
Frederic Weisbecker
SUSE Labs
