Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <87857a82-99af-a941-9374-3bbe373ff74a@allwinnertech.com>
Date:   Fri, 7 Apr 2023 14:51:12 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.9.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tick/broadcast: Do not set oneshot_mask except
 was_periodic was true
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
Cc:     fweisbec@gmail.com, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@kernel.org,
        jindong.yue@nxp.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20230328063629.108510-1-victor@allwinnertech.com>
 <ZCqp02hiCell/5AR@lothringen>
 <b187d221-228a-f032-8c93-16e148ec49ca@allwinnertech.com>
 <ZCwWUyUkcC9PZlij@lothringen>
From:   Victor Hassan <victor@allwinnertech.com>
In-Reply-To: <ZCwWUyUkcC9PZlij@lothringen>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


On 4/4/2023 8:21 PM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 04, 2023 at 07:37:06PM +0800, Victor Hassan wrote:
>>>
>>> Leading to such race:
>>>
>>> * CPU 1 stop its tick, next event is in one hour
>>> * CPU 0 registers new broadcast and sets CPU 1 in tick_broadcast_oneshot_mask
>>> * CPU 1 runs into cpuidle_enter_state(), and tick_broadcast_enter() is ignored because
>>>     the CPU is already in tick_broadcast_oneshot_mask
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>> * CPU 1 goes to sleep
>>> * CPU 0 runs the broadcast callback, sees that the next timer for CPU 1
>>>     is in one hour, program the broadcast to that deadline
>>> * CPU 1 gets an interrupt that enqueues a new timer expiring in the next jiffy
>>> * CPU 1 don't call tick_broadcast_exit and thus don't remove itself from
>>>     tick_broadcast_oneshot_mask
>>
>> I'm not sure about this... Actually, I believe CPU 1 *will* call
>> tick_broadcast_exit in this condition because I cannot find a limitation on
>> this execution path.
> 
> You're right, what I wrote doesn't make sense. Let me try again:
> 
> * CPU 1 stop its tick, next event is in one hour. It calls
>    tick_broadcast_enter() and goes to sleep.
>    
> * CPU 1 gets an interrupt that enqueues a new timer expiring in the next jiffy
>    (note it's not yet actually programmed in the tick device)
>    
> * CPU 1 call tick_broadcast_exit().
> 
> * CPU 0 registers new broadcast device and sets CPU 1 in tick_broadcast_oneshot_mask
> 
> * CPU 0 runs the broadcast callback, sees that the next timer for CPU 1
>    is in one hour (because the recently enqueued timer for CPU 1 hasn't been programmed
>    yet), so it programs the broadcast to that 1 hour deadline.
> 
> * CPU 1 runs tick_nohz_idle_stop_tick() which eventually writes and program
>    dev->next_event to next jiffy
>    
> * CPU 1 runs into cpuidle_enter_state(), and tick_broadcast_enter() is ignored because
>    the CPU is already in tick_broadcast_oneshot_mask, so the dev->next_event
>    change isn't propagated to broadcast.
> 
> * CPU 1 goes to sleep for 1 hour.

Hi Frederic,
   Yes, I think that make sense :)


> 
> Does it make more sense? There might be more simple scenario of course.
> 
> Thanks.