Re: [PATCH] sched/topology: clear freecpu bit on detach

[Florian Fainelli]

On 6/3/25 09:18, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> On 5/23/25 11:14, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> > Moving CC list to To
> >
> > On 5/2/25 06:02, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On 29/04/25 10:15, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> > > > On 4/22/2025 9:48 PM, Doug Berger wrote:
> > > > > There is a hazard in the deadline scheduler where an offlined CPU
> > > > > can have its free_cpus bit left set in the def_root_domain when
> > > > > the schedutil cpufreq governor is used. This can allow a deadline
> > > > > thread to be pushed to the runqueue of a powered down CPU which
> > > > > breaks scheduling. The details can be found here:
> > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20250110233010.2339521-1- 
> > > > > opendmb@xxxxxxxxx
> > > > >
> > > > > The free_cpus mask is expected to be cleared by set_rq_offline();
> > > > > however, the hazard occurs before the root domain is made online
> > > > > during CPU hotplug so that function is not invoked for the CPU
> > > > > that is being made active.
> > > > >
> > > > > This commit works around the issue by ensuring the free_cpus bit
> > > > > for a CPU is always cleared when the CPU is removed from a
> > > > > root_domain. This likely makes the call of cpudl_clear_freecpu()
> > > > > in rq_offline_dl() fully redundant, but I have not removed it
> > > > > here because I am not certain of all flows.
> > > > >
> > > > > It seems likely that a better solution is possible from someone
> > > > > more familiar with the scheduler implementation, but this
> > > > > approach is minimally invasive from someone who is not.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Doug Berger <opendmb@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > >
> > > > FWIW, we were able to reproduce this with the attached hotplug.sh 
> > > > script
> > > > which would just randomly hot plug/unplug CPUs (./hotplug.sh 4). 
> > > > Within a
> > > > few hundred of iterations you could see the lock up occur, it's 
> > > > unclear why
> > > > this has not been seen by more people.
> > > >
> > > > Since this is not the first posting or attempt at fixing this bug 
> > > > [1] and we
> > > > consider it to be a serious one, can this be reviewed/commented on/ 
> > > > applied?
> > > > Thanks!
> > > >
> > > > [1]: https://lkml.org/lkml/2025/1/14/1687
> > >
> > > So, going back to the initial report, the thing that makes me a bit
> > > uncomfortable with the suggested change is the worry that it might be
> > > plastering over a more fundamental issue. Not against it, though, and I
> > > really appreciate Doug's analysis and proposed fixes!
> > >
> > > Doug wrote:
> > >
> > > "Initially, CPU0 and CPU1 are active and CPU2 and CPU3 have been
> > > previously offlined so their runqueues are attached to the
> > > def_root_domain.
> > > 1) A hot plug is initiated on CPU2.
> > > 2) The cpuhp/2 thread invokes the cpufreq governor driver during
> > >     the CPUHP_AP_ONLINE_DYN step.
> > > 3) The sched util cpufreq governor creates the "sugov:2" thread to
> > >     execute on CPU2 with the deadline scheduler.
> > > 4) The deadline scheduler clears the free_cpus mask for CPU2 within
> > >     the def_root_domain when "sugov:2" is scheduled."
> > >
> > > I wonder if it's OK to schedule sugov:2 on a CPU that didn't reach yet
> > > complete online state. Peter, others, what do you think?
> >
> > Peter, can you please review this patch? Thank you
>
> Ping? Can we get to some resolution on way or another here? Thanks

Peter, can you please review this patch or ask questions or anything in 
case something is not clear?

This is currently preventing our systems using the schedutil cpufreq 
governor from being able to pass a few hundred CPU hotplug cycles before 
getting a hang.

Thank you!
--
Florian