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:   Mon, 24 Feb 2020 13:55:25 +0100
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To:     Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     tony.luck@intel.com, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com,
        hpa@zytor.com, x86@kernel.org, linux-edac@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/mce/therm_throt: Handle case where
 throttle_active_work() is called on behalf of an offline CPU
Message-ID: <20200224125525.GA29318@zn.tnic>
References: <20200222162432.497201-1-srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>
 <20200222175151.GD11284@zn.tnic>
 <40989625ca5496a986ca3e595957da83723777f4.camel@linux.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <40989625ca5496a986ca3e595957da83723777f4.camel@linux.intel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 04:25:59PM -0800, Srinivas Pandruvada wrote:
> If the condition is false, will it prevent offline CPU before executing
> next statement and reschedule on another CPU? Although It will not
> cause any error or crash but in rare circumstance may print premature
> warning/normal message based on the current CPU's state.

Why, offline CPU is offline CPU?

Btw, I'm asking whether you can do the simpler thing *instead* of your
patch. You basically don't run the workqueue callback on offlined CPUs:

	get_online_cpus();

	if (cpu_is_offline(smp_processor_id()))
		goto out;

	...


out:
	put_online_cpus();

Hmm?

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette