Le Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 08:33:45PM +0000, Usama Arif a écrit : > The following warning is being encountered at boot time: > > WARNING: CPU: 94 PID: 588 at kernel/time/hrtimer.c:1086 hrtimer_start_range_ns+0x289/0x2d0 > Modules linked in: > CPU: 94 UID: 0 PID: 588 Comm: migration/94 Not tainted > Stopper: multi_cpu_stop+0x0/0x120 <- stop_machine_cpuslocked+0x66/0xc0 > RIP: 0010:hrtimer_start_range_ns+0x289/0x2d0 > Code: 41 5c 41 5d 41 5e 41 5f 5d e9 63 94 ea 00 0f 0b 48 83 c4 10 5b 41 5c 41 5d 41 5e 41 5f 5d e9 39 fc 15 01 0f 0b e9 c1 fd ff ff <0f> 0b 48 8b 45 00 e9 59 ff ff ff f3 0f 1e fa 65 8b 05 1d ec e8 7e > RSP: 0018:ffffc900019cbcc8 EFLAGS: 00010046 > RAX: ffff88bf449a4c40 RBX: 0000000000000082 RCX: 0000000000000001 > RDX: 0000000000000001 RSI: ffff88bf43224c80 RDI: ffff88bf449a4c40 > RBP: ffff88bf449a4c80 R08: ffff888280970090 R09: 0000000000000000 > R10: ffff88bf432252e0 R11: ffffffff811abf70 R12: ffff88bf449a4c40 > R13: ffff88bf43234b28 R14: ffff88bf43224c80 R15: 0000000000000000 > FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff88bf44980000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 > CR2: 0000000000000000 CR3: 000000404b230001 CR4: 0000000000770ef0 > PKRU: 55555554 > Call Trace: > <TASK> > ? __warn+0xcf/0x1b0 > ? hrtimer_start_range_ns+0x289/0x2d0 > ? report_bug+0x120/0x1a0 > ? handle_bug+0x60/0x90 > ? exc_invalid_op+0x1a/0x50 > ? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x1a/0x20 > ? register_refined_jiffies+0xb0/0xb0 > ? hrtimer_start_range_ns+0x289/0x2d0 > ? hrtimer_start_range_ns+0x186/0x2d0 > start_dl_timer+0xfc/0x150 > enqueue_dl_entity+0x367/0x640 > dl_server_start+0x53/0xa0 > enqueue_task_fair+0x363/0x460 > enqueue_task+0x3c/0x200 > ttwu_do_activate+0x94/0x240 > try_to_wake_up+0x315/0x600 > complete+0x4b/0x80 > ? stop_two_cpus+0x2f0/0x2f0 > cpu_stopper_thread+0xb1/0x120 > ? smpboot_unregister_percpu_thread+0xc0/0xc0 > smpboot_thread_fn+0xf7/0x150 > kthread+0x121/0x130 > ? kthread_blkcg+0x40/0x40 > ret_from_fork+0x39/0x50 > ? kthread_blkcg+0x40/0x40 > ret_from_fork_asm+0x11/0x20 > </TASK> > > It looks like completion that requires an hrtimer is being scheduled on a > CPU that is not yet completely online. There have been other issues with > hrtimer that have been fixed recently [1]. A possible fix would be to > defer the completion to be done by a CPU already online. > This bug might have been introduced in [2]. > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240913214205.12359-2-frederic@xxxxxxxxxx/ > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/169972295552.3135.1094880886431606890.tip-bot2@tip-bot2/ > Reported-by: Vlad Poenaru <vlad.wing@xxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Usama Arif <usamaarif642@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > kernel/sched/completion.c | 25 ++++++++++++++++++++++++- > 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/completion.c b/kernel/sched/completion.c > index 3561ab533dd4..b79d0868f997 100644 > --- a/kernel/sched/completion.c > +++ b/kernel/sched/completion.c > @@ -30,6 +30,13 @@ void complete_on_current_cpu(struct completion *x) > return complete_with_flags(x, WF_CURRENT_CPU); > } > > +static void complete_ipi(void *arg) > +{ > + struct completion *x = arg; > + > + complete_with_flags(x, 0); > +} > + > /** > * complete: - signals a single thread waiting on this completion > * @x: holds the state of this particular completion > @@ -44,7 +51,23 @@ void complete_on_current_cpu(struct completion *x) > */ > void complete(struct completion *x) > { > - complete_with_flags(x, 0); > + int cpu = get_cpu(); > + > + /* The scheduler might queue an ignored hrtimer. Defer the wake up > + * to an online CPU instead. > + */ > + if (unlikely(cpu_is_offline(cpu))) { > + int target; > + > + target = cpumask_any_and(housekeeping_cpumask(HK_TYPE_RCU), > + cpu_online_mask); > + > + smp_call_function_single(target, complete_ipi, x, 1); > + put_cpu(); > + } else { > + put_cpu(); > + complete_with_flags(x, 0); > + } Right, we are doing something similar with RCU (swake_up_one_oneline() for example). But I've never been satisfied with that bandaid. And now it's spreading. Should we force switch_hrtimer_base() to designate an online CPU for unpinned timers if the current one is offline? And then send a retrigger_next_event() with smp_call_function_async() with some special care? Thomas, does that sound like a good way out? Thanks. > } > EXPORT_SYMBOL(complete); > > -- > 2.43.5 >
