[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y8qazpmqk4dmw37F@kroah.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2023 14:44:46 +0100
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Zhouyi Zhou <zhouzhouyi@...il.com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
rcu <rcu@...r.kernel.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tick/nohz: Fix cpu_is_hotpluggable() by checking with
nohz subsystem
On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 08:32:30AM -0500, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>
>
> > On Jan 20, 2023, at 2:05 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 08:44:35PM +0000, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> >> For CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL systems, the tick_do_timer_cpu cannot be offlined.
> >> However, cpu_is_hotpluggable() still returns true for those CPUs. This causes
> >> torture tests that do offlining to end up trying to offline this CPU causing
> >> test failures. Such failure happens on all architectures.
> >>
> >> Fix it by asking the opinion of the nohz subsystem on whether the CPU can
> >> be hotplugged.
> >>
> >> [ Apply Frederic Weisbecker feedback on refactoring tick_nohz_cpu_down(). ]
> >>
> >> Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
> >> Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
> >> Cc: Zhouyi Zhou <zhouzhouyi@...il.com>
> >> Cc: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
> >> Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
> >> Cc: rcu <rcu@...r.kernel.org>
> >> Fixes: 2987557f52b9 ("driver-core/cpu: Expose hotpluggability to the rest of the kernel")
> >> Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@...lfernandes.org>
> >
> > Also want to cc: stable on the patch?
>
> Oh sure, sorry. For some reason I thought Sasha and your AI scripts
> were looking at the Linux-kernel list as well. Or are they, and a Cc
> to stable is just to be doubly sure?
As per the rules we have had for the last 15+ years, always add a cc:
stable to be sure that the patch will be considered for stable releases.
If not, you are on you own and sometimes we might notice it, others not.
See:
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/stable-kernel-rules.html
for the details.
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists