Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 24 Nov 2020 15:18:53 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Sven Schnelle <svens@linux.ibm.com>
Cc:     rafael@kernel.org, viresh.kumar@linaro.org, mingo@kernel.org,
        x86@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, will@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] More RCU vs idle fixes
Message-ID: <20201124141853.GG2414@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20201120114145.197714127@infradead.org>
 <yt9dv9du7tow.fsf@linux.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <yt9dv9du7tow.fsf@linux.ibm.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 02:47:27PM +0100, Sven Schnelle wrote:
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> writes:
> 
> > Both arm64 and s390 are tripping over arch_cpu_idle() RCU,tracing,lockdep
> > interaction. While looking at that I also found fail in inte_idle.
> >
> > Please consider for this cycle.
> 
> Is anyone taking this patchset?

I think I'll stuff it in x86/urgent for lack of a better place.

> For s390, we also need to change the
> local_irq_safe/restore to the raw variants in enabled_wait() in
> arch/s390/kernel/idle.c.

Duh, I'll add that.