Re: [BUG] cgroups/cpusets: Spurious CPU-hotplug failures
From: Waiman Long
Date: Tue Mar 24 2026 - 20:04:32 EST
On 3/24/26 5:41 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2026 at 11:43:37AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2026 at 11:02:16AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:This did fix the problem, except for PREEMPT_RT kernels (which I have
On 3/18/26 8:53 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:It does, thank you!
Hello!There is a fix commit ca174c705db5 ("cgroup/cpuset: Call
Running rcutorture on v7.0-rc3 results in spurious CPU-hotplug failures,
most frequently on the TREE03 scenario, which suffers about ten such
failures per hundred hours of test time. Repeat-by is as follows:
tools/testing/selftests/rcutorture/bin/kvm.sh --cpus 80 --duration 100h --configs "100*TREE03" --trust-make
Though a faster repeat-by instead uses kvm-remote.sh and lots of systems.
Bisection converges here:
6df415aa46ec ("cgroup/cpuset: Defer housekeeping_update() calls from CPU hotplug to workqueue")
Reverting this commit gets rid of the spurious CPU-hotplug failures.
Of course, this also gets rid of some ability to do dynamic nohz_full
processing.
Now, the problem might be that the workqueue handler might still be
in flight by the time that rcutorture fired up the next CPU-hotplug
operation, especially given that the TREE03 scenario only waits 200
milliseconds between these operations. This suggests waiting for this
handler before ending each CPU-hotplug operation. And the crude patch
below does make the problem go away.
This alleged fix is quite heavy-handed, and also fragile in that if
hk_sd_workfn() uses a different workqueue, this breaks. It might be
better to call into the cgroups/cpusets code and to use flush_work()
to wait only on hk_sd_workfn() and nothing else. But it seemed best to
keep things trivial to start with.
Either way, please consider the patch below to be part of this bug report
rather than a proper fix.
Thoughts?
Thanx, Paul
rebuild_sched_domains() directly in hotplug") in rc4 that may help. Could
you try out the rc4 kernel to see if that can resolve the problem that you
have?
Tested-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx>
not yet bisected). If there is another patch for that configuration,
could you please let me know?
Thank for the notice. I haven't much testing with respect to PREEMPT_RT kernel. I will try to run some tests on PREEMPT_RT kernel and see if there is any problem. Please let me know if you found out the new cpuset code is at fault after bisection.
Cheers,
Longman