Re: [PATCH-next 00/23] cgroup/cpuset: Enable runtime update of nohz_full and managed_irq CPUs

"Paul E. McKenney" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups org.kernel.vger.rcu,org.kernel.vger.cgroups,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel
Message-ID <4b9bfc1b-2724-4507-b2b2-81d71eb79841@paulmck-laptop>
On Thu, Jul 02, 2026 at 05:00:03PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 01 2026 at 16:22, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > Le Thu, Jun 25, 2026 at 01:27:54AM -0400, Waiman Long a écrit :
> >> That will require some adjustments to the nohz_full related hotplug
> >> functions. I have some ideas of what needs to be done. However, I haven't
> >> looked into RCU yet. I know RCU support changing the nocb mask for fully
> >> offline CPUs, I will need to find out if it possible to do that for
> >> partially offline CPUs.
> >
> > No because callbacks can still be enqueued at this stage. But we could
> > manage to make it work with CPUHP_AP_IDLE_DEAD.
> 
> Well, if you go down to CPUHP_AP_IDLE_DEAD then that's not any different
> from going down all the way because the latency spike of stomp_machine()
> for bringing it down is the same.
> 
> You are right that with the current code this is not possible, but it
> should be possible to avoid that alltogether.
> 
> The only critical path is when a CPU switches to offload mode. Switching
> to 'yes queue callbacks here' mode is not really interesting.
> 
> Let's look how RCU hot-unplug works:
> 
>   1) CPU is marked !active
> 
>   2) rcutree_offline_cpu() removes the CPU from the fully functional CPU
>      mask
>   
>   3) stomp_machine()
> 
>   4) rcutree_cpu_dying() just traces that the CPU is about to vanish
> 
>   5) Wait for the CPU to report DEAD
> 
>   6) rcutree_migrate_callbacks() mops up the leftover callbacks on the
>      dead CPU
> 
> So if the whole machinery changes to:
> 
>   1) CPU is marked !active
> 
>   2) rcutree_offline_cpu() removes the CPU from the fully functional CPU
>      mask _AND_ marks the CPU as "lightweight offloaded", which means:
> 
>         - no new callbacks can be queued on it anymore neither from the
>           CPU itself nor from truly offloaded CPUs
> 
>         - the CPU is still processing already queued callbacks and
>           participates in the GP magic
> 
>   3) Before CPUHP_AP_SCHED_WAIT_EMPTY add a new CPUHP_AP_RCU_SYNC state,
>      which does:
> 
>        - a full RCU synchronization to end all outstanding read side
>          critical sections
> 
>        - drain the now ready callbacks on this CPU
> 
>   4) Proceed to CPUHP_TEARDOWN_CPU, where the operation stops
> 
>   5) Do the magic cpuset changes for the CPU
> 
>   6) Bring CPU back up
> 
> At #4 the half unplugged CPU is not in NOHZ full mode and the tick keeps
> running so all GP processing work as before except that the CPU itself
> is not handling any callbacks because all queued ones are drained and no
> new ones can be queued. When it comes back up it turns into a fully
> offloaded one.
> 
> There are obviously a gazillion of details and cornercases to handle,
> but I don't see why this can't be made work in principle.

For this case, where it is necessary to adjust the set of nohz_full CPUs
while the real-time workload continues running, and thus presumably also
necessary to adjust the real-time workload's set of CPUs mid-stream,
wouldn't it work better to just leave all CPUs in RCU-callbacks-offloaded
state?  Then you can adjust the nohz_full state of arbitrary CPUs without
messing with RCU.

RCU might still have some TOCTOU issues with tick_nohz_full_cpu(),
along with interesting interactions between nohz_full adjustments for
online CPUs and non-RCU portions of the kernel, but this approach would
certainly reduce the number of oddball RCU-centric race conditions that
must be addressed.

Full disclosure:  Frederic was attacking the full-up problem of switching
the RCU callback-offloading state of *online* CPUs initially, but a
continuous stream of race-condition bugs inspired the current state,
which is to allow this state to change only for offline CPUs.  But maybe
Frederic knows a new trick or two?

							Thanx, Paul
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.