[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87r1m5can2.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2021 17:02:41 +0100
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
Cc: Nitesh Narayan Lal <nitesh@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
frederic@...nel.org, juri.lelli@...hat.com, abelits@...vell.com,
bhelgaas@...gle.com, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
rostedt@...dmis.org, mingo@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
davem@...emloft.net, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
sfr@...b.auug.org.au, stephen@...workplumber.org,
rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, jinyuqi@...wei.com,
zhangshaokun@...ilicon.com
Subject: Re: [Patch v4 1/3] lib: Restrict cpumask_local_spread to houskeeping CPUs
On Wed, Jan 27 2021 at 09:19, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 11:57:16AM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote:
>> > + hk_flags = HK_FLAG_DOMAIN | HK_FLAG_MANAGED_IRQ;
>> > + mask = housekeeping_cpumask(hk_flags);
>>
>> AFAICS, this generally resolves to something based on cpu_possible_mask
>> rather than cpu_online_mask as before, so could now potentially return an
>> offline CPU. Was that an intentional change?
>
> Robin,
>
> AFAICS online CPUs should be filtered.
The whole pile wants to be reverted. It's simply broken in several ways.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists