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 15:23:03 +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: <20201124142303.GF3092@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20201120114145.197714127@infradead.org>
 <yt9dv9du7tow.fsf@linux.ibm.com>
 <20201124141853.GG2414@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20201124141853.GG2414@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 03:18:53PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 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.

Ah, locking/urgent might be a better place I suppose.