Re: [tip: sched/urgent] sched/isolation: Fix boot crash when maxcpus < first housekeeping CPU
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- Subject: Re: [tip: sched/urgent] sched/isolation: Fix boot crash when maxcpus < first housekeeping CPU
- From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2024 10:13:18 +0200
- Cc: linux-tip-commits@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Phil Auld <pauld@xxxxxxxxxx>, Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@xxxxxxxxxx>, x86@xxxxxxxxxx
- In-reply-to: <171398910207.10875.4426725644764756607.tip-bot2@tip-bot2>
- References: <20240413141746.GA10008@redhat.com> <171398910207.10875.4426725644764756607.tip-bot2@tip-bot2>
* tip-bot2 for Oleg Nesterov <tip-bot2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Another corner case is "nohz_full=0" on a machine with a single CPU or with
> the maxcpus=1 kernel argument. In this case non_housekeeping_mask is empty
> and tick_nohz_full_setup() makes no sense. And indeed, the kernel hits the
> WARN_ON(tick_nohz_full_running) in tick_sched_do_timer().
>
> And how should the kernel interpret the "nohz_full=" parameter? It should
> be silently ignored, but currently cpulist_parse() happily returns the
> empty cpumask and this leads to the same problem.
>
> Change housekeeping_setup() to check cpumask_empty(non_housekeeping_mask)
> and do nothing in this case.
So arguably the user meant NOHZ_FULL to be turned off - but it is de-facto
already turned off by the fact that there's only a single CPU available,
right?
Thanks,
Ingo
[Index of Archives]
[Linux Stable Commits]
[Linux Stable Kernel]
[Linux Kernel]
[Linux USB Devel]
[Linux Video &Media]
[Linux Audio Users]
[Yosemite News]
[Linux SCSI]