Messages in this thread |  | | From | Valentin Schneider <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/7] cpumask: fix checking valid cpu range | Date | Wed, 28 Sep 2022 13:18:20 +0100 |
| |
On 19/09/22 14:05, Yury Norov wrote: > The range of valid CPUs is [0, nr_cpu_ids). Some cpumask functions are > passed with a shifted CPU index, and for them, the valid range is > [-1, nr_cpu_ids-1). Currently for those functions, we check the index > against [-1, nr_cpu_ids), which is wrong. > > Signed-off-by: Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com> > --- > include/linux/cpumask.h | 19 ++++++++----------- > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/include/linux/cpumask.h b/include/linux/cpumask.h > index e4f9136a4a63..a1cd4eb1a3d6 100644 > --- a/include/linux/cpumask.h > +++ b/include/linux/cpumask.h > @@ -174,9 +174,8 @@ static inline unsigned int cpumask_last(const struct cpumask *srcp) > static inline > unsigned int cpumask_next(int n, const struct cpumask *srcp) > { > - /* -1 is a legal arg here. */ > - if (n != -1) > - cpumask_check(n); > + /* n is a prior cpu */ > + cpumask_check(n + 1); > return find_next_bit(cpumask_bits(srcp), nr_cpumask_bits, n + 1);
I'm confused, this makes passing nr_cpu_ids-1 to cpumask_next*() trigger a warning. The documentation does states:
* @n: the cpu prior to the place to search (ie. return will be > @n)
So n is a valid CPU number (with -1 being the exception for scan initialization), this shouldn't exclude nr_cpu_ids-1.
IMO passing nr_cpu_ids-1 should be treated the same as passing the last set bit in a bitmap: no warning, and returns the bitmap size. Otherwise reaching nr_cpu_ids-1 has to be special-cased by the calling code which seems like unnecessary boiler plate
For instance, I trigger the cpumask_check() warning there:
3d2dcab932d0:block/blk-mq.c @l2047 if (--hctx->next_cpu_batch <= 0) { select_cpu: next_cpu = cpumask_next_and(next_cpu, hctx->cpumask, <----- cpu_online_mask); if (next_cpu >= nr_cpu_ids) next_cpu = blk_mq_first_mapped_cpu(hctx); hctx->next_cpu_batch = BLK_MQ_CPU_WORK_BATCH; }
next_cpu is a valid CPU number, shifting it doesn't seem to make sense, and we do want it to reach nr_cpu_ids-1.
|  |