On Sat, Aug 26, 2023 at 02:13:39PM +0800, Z qiang wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 10:28:37AM +0800, Z qiang wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 04:42:06PM +0800, Zqiang wrote:
> > > > > Currently, the maxcpu is set by traversing online CPUs, however, if
> > > > > the rcutorture.onoff_holdoff is set zero and onoff_interval is set
> > > > > non-zero, and the some CPUs with larger cpuid has been offline before
> > > > > setting maxcpu, for these CPUs, even if they are online again, also
> > > > > cannot be offload or deoffload.
> > > > >
> > > > > This commit therefore use for_each_possible_cpu() instead of
> > > > > for_each_online_cpu() in rcu_nocb_toggle().
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Zqiang <qiang.zhang1211@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c | 2 +-
> > > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c b/kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c
> > > > > index a58372bdf0c1..b75d0fe558ce 100644
> > > > > --- a/kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c
> > > > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c
> > > > > @@ -2131,7 +2131,7 @@ static int rcu_nocb_toggle(void *arg)
> > > > > VERBOSE_TOROUT_STRING("rcu_nocb_toggle task started");
> > > > > while (!rcu_inkernel_boot_has_ended())
> > > > > schedule_timeout_interruptible(HZ / 10);
> > > > > - for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
> > > > > + for_each_possible_cpu(cpu)
> > > >
> > > > Last I checked, bad things could happen if the code attempted to
> > > > nocb_toggle a CPU that had not yet come online. Has that changed?
> > >
> > > For example, there are 8 online CPUs in the system, before we traversing online
> > > CPUs and set maxcpu, CPU7 has been offline, this causes us to miss nocb_toggle
> > > for CPU7(maxcpu=6)
> > >
> > > Even though we still use for_each_online_cpu(), the things described
> > > above also happen. before we toggle the CPU, this CPU has been offline.
> >
> > Suppose we have a system whose possible CPUs are 0, 1, 2, and 3. However,
> > only 0 and 1 are present in this system, and until some manual action is
> > taken, only 0 and 1 will ever be online. (Yes, this really can happen!)
> > In that state, won't toggling CPU 2 and 3 result in failures?
> >
>
> Agree.
> As long as we enabled rcutorture.onoff_interval, regardless of whether we use
> online CPUs or possible CPUs to set maxcpu, It is all possible to
> toggling the CPUs failure
> and print "NOCB: Cannot CB-offload offline CPU" log. but the failures
> due to CPU offline are acceptable.
>
> but at least the toggling operation on CPU7 will not be missed. when
> CPU7 comes online again.
>
> Would it be better to use for_each_present_cpu() ?
The problem we face is that RCU and rcutorture have no reasonable way
of knowing when the boot-time CPU bringup has completed. If there was a
way of knowing that, then my approach would be to make rcutorture react
to a holdoff of zero by waiting for all the CPUs to come online.
Failing that, for_each_present_cpu() with a holdoff of zero will likely
get us transient failures between the time rcutorture starts and the
last CPU has come online.
Or is there now a way for in-kernel code know when boot-time CPU onlining
has completed?
Thanx, Paul
> Thanks
> Zqiang
>
> >
> > Thanx, Paul
> >
> > > Thanks
> > > Zqiang
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanx, Paul
> > > >
> > > > > maxcpu = cpu;
> > > > > WARN_ON(maxcpu < 0);
> > > > > if (toggle_interval > ULONG_MAX)
> > > > > --
> > > > > 2.17.1
> > > > >
