Re: [PATCH RESEND 1/2] tick/nohz: Fix wrong NOHZ idle CPU state

[Frederic Weisbecker]

Le Thu, Aug 21, 2025 at 04:27:06AM +0000, Adam Li a écrit :
> NOHZ idle load balance is done among CPUs in nohz.idle_cpus_mask.
> A CPU is added to nohz.idle_cpus_mask in:
> do_idle()
>   -> tick_nohz_idle_stop_tick()
>      -> nohz_balance_enter_idle()
> 
> nohz_balance_enter_idle() is called if:
> 1) tick is stopped (TS_FLAG_STOPPED is set)
> 2) and tick was not already stopped before tick_nohz_idle_stop_tick()
>    stops the tick (!was_stopped)
> 
> When CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL is set and the CPU is in the nohz_full list
> then 'was_stopped' may always be true.
> The flag 'TS_FLAG_STOPPED' may be already set in
> tick_nohz_full_stop_tick(). So nohz_balance_enter_idle() has no chance
> to be called.
> 
> As a result, CPU will stay in a 'wrong' state:
> 1) tick is stopped (TS_FLAG_STOPPED is set)
> 2) and CPU is not in nohz.idle_cpus_mask
> 3) and CPU stays idle
> 
> Neither the periodic nor the NOHZ idle load balancing can move task
> to this CPU. Some CPUs keep idle while others busy.
> 
> In nohz_balance_enter_idle(), 'rq->nohz_tick_stopped' is checked to avoid
> duplicated nohz.idle_cpus_mask setting. So for nohz_balance_enter_idle()
> there is no need to check the '!was_stopped' condition.
> 
> This patch will add the CPU to nohz.idle_cpus_mask as expected.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Adam Li <adamli@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Reviewed-by: Christoph Lameter (Ampere) <cl@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  kernel/time/tick-sched.c | 5 +++--
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/time/tick-sched.c b/kernel/time/tick-sched.c
> index c527b421c865..b900a120ab54 100644
> --- a/kernel/time/tick-sched.c
> +++ b/kernel/time/tick-sched.c
> @@ -1229,8 +1229,9 @@ void tick_nohz_idle_stop_tick(void)
>  		ts->idle_sleeps++;
>  		ts->idle_expires = expires;
>  
> -		if (!was_stopped && tick_sched_flag_test(ts, TS_FLAG_STOPPED)) {
> -			ts->idle_jiffies = ts->last_jiffies;
> +		if (tick_sched_flag_test(ts, TS_FLAG_STOPPED)) {
> +			if (!was_stopped)
> +				ts->idle_jiffies = ts->last_jiffies;
>  			nohz_balance_enter_idle(cpu);

The current state is indeed broken and some people have already tried to fix it.
The thing is nohz_full don't want dynamic isolation because it is deemed to run a
single task. Therefore those tasks must be placed manually in order not to break
isolation guarantees by accident.

In fact nohz_full doesn't make much sense without isolcpus (or isolated cpuset
v2 partitions) and I even intend to make nohz_full depend on domain isolation
in the long term.

Thanks.

>  		}
>  	} else {
> -- 
> 2.34.1
> 

-- 
Frederic Weisbecker
SUSE Labs