[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20251030090715.GQ3245006@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2025 10:07:15 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: tj@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com,
	juri.lelli@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
	dietmar.eggemann@....com, rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com,
	mgorman@...e.de, vschneid@...hat.com, longman@...hat.com,
	hannes@...xchg.org, mkoutny@...e.com, void@...ifault.com,
	arighi@...dia.com, changwoo@...lia.com, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
	sched-ext@...ts.linux.dev, liuwenfang@...or.com, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/14] sched: Fix do_set_cpus_allowed() locking
On Thu, Oct 30, 2025 at 12:12:01AM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2025 at 05:44:16PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> > All callers of do_set_cpus_allowed() only take p->pi_lock, which is
> > not sufficient to actually change the cpumask. Again, this is mostly
> > ok in these cases, but it results in unnecessarily complicated
> > reasoning.
> 
> We're seeing lockups on some arm64 platforms in -next with the LTP
> cpuhotplug02 test, the machine sits there repeatedly complaining that
> RCU is stalled on IPIs:
Did not this help?
  https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20251027110133.GI3245006@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
 
