* Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@xxxxxxxxxx> [230912 13:09]: > > > Le 12/09/2023 à 17:44, Liam R. Howlett a écrit : > > diff --git a/init/main.c b/init/main.c > > index dbe1fe76be34..fd4739918a94 100644 > > --- a/init/main.c > > +++ b/init/main.c > > @@ -696,7 +696,7 @@ noinline void __ref __noreturn rest_init(void) > > */ > > rcu_read_lock(); > > tsk = find_task_by_pid_ns(pid, &init_pid_ns); > > - tsk->flags |= PF_NO_SETAFFINITY; > > + tsk->flags |= PF_NO_SETAFFINITY & PF_IDLE; > > Is it really what you want to do ? > > PF_NO_SETAFFINITY is 0x04000000 and PF_IDLE is 0x00000002 so > > PF_NO_SETAFFINITY & PF_IDLE is 0 > > > Didn't you mean to do PF_NO_SETAFFINITY | PF_IDLE ? Yes, certainly. > > > Regardless, with either change I don't get the warning anymore. I don't have it fully tested but we avoid getting the call_rcu() setting the TIF_... flag by avoiding the task having PF_IDLE set in the flags. I'm not entirely sure if I have added the set/clear in the best locations either. The largest concern I have is that this could potentially change arch or platfrom code if anything depends on this being idle. > > > > > set_cpus_allowed_ptr(tsk, cpumask_of(smp_processor_id())); > > rcu_read_unlock(); > > > > @@ -943,6 +943,7 @@ void start_kernel(void) > > * time - but meanwhile we still have a functioning scheduler. > > */ > > sched_init(); > > + current->flags &= ~PF_IDLE; > > > > if (WARN(!irqs_disabled(), > > "Interrupts were enabled *very* early, fixing it\n")) > >
