Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 22 May 2019 16:49:18 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Andrew Murray <andrew.murray@arm.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] smp,cpumask: Don't call functions on offline CPUs
Message-ID: <20190522144918.GH16275@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20190522111537.27815-1-andrew.murray@arm.com>
 <20190522140921.GD16275@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20190522143711.GC8268@e119886-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190522143711.GC8268@e119886-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 03:37:11PM +0100, Andrew Murray wrote:
> > Is perhaps the problem that on_each_cpu_cond() uses cpu_onlne_mask
> > without protection?
> 
> Does this prevent racing with a CPU going offline? I guess this prevents
> the warning at the expense of a lock - but is only beneficial in the
> unlikely path. (In the likely path this prevents new CPUs going offline
> but we don't care because we don't WARN if they aren't they when we
> attempt to call functions).
> 
> At least this is my limited understanding.

Hmm.. I don't think it could matter, we only use the mask when
preempt_disable(), which would already block offline, due to it using
stop_machine().

So the patch is a no-op.

What's the WARN you see? TLB invalidation should pass mm_cpumask(),
which similarly should not contain offline CPUs I'm thinking.