On Mon, May 09, 2022 at 04:03:39PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, May 05 2022 at 17:00, Ricardo Neri wrote:
> > + if (is_hpet_hld_interrupt(hdata)) {
> > + /*
> > + * Kick the timer first. If the HPET channel is periodic, it
> > + * helps to reduce the delta between the expected TSC value and
> > + * its actual value the next time the HPET channel fires.
> > + */
> > + kick_timer(hdata, !(hdata->has_periodic));
> > +
> > + if (cpumask_weight(hld_data->monitored_cpumask) > 1) {
> > + /*
> > + * Since we cannot know the source of an NMI, the best
> > + * we can do is to use a flag to indicate to all online
> > + * CPUs that they will get an NMI and that the source of
> > + * that NMI is the hardlockup detector. Offline CPUs
> > + * also receive the NMI but they ignore it.
> > + *
> > + * Even though we are in NMI context, we have concluded
> > + * that the NMI came from the HPET channel assigned to
> > + * the detector, an event that is infrequent and only
> > + * occurs in the handling CPU. There should not be races
> > + * with other NMIs.
> > + */
> > + cpumask_copy(hld_data->inspect_cpumask,
> > + cpu_online_mask);
> > +
> > + /* If we are here, IPI shorthands are enabled. */
> > + apic->send_IPI_allbutself(NMI_VECTOR);
>
> So if the monitored cpumask is a subset of online CPUs, which is the
> case when isolation features are enabled, then you still send NMIs to
> those isolated CPUs. I'm sure the isolation folks will be enthused.
Yes, I acknowledged this limitation in the cover letter. I should also update
Documentation/admin-guide/lockup-watchdogs.rst.
This patchset proposes the HPET NMI watchdog as an opt-in feature.
Perhaps the limitation might be mitigated by adding a check for non-housekeeping
and non-monitored CPUs in exc_nmi(). However, that will not eliminate the
problem of isolated CPUs also getting the NMI.
Thanks and BR,
Ricardo
