Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-65859-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 15:59:36 -0300
From: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@kernel.org>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
	Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
	Leonardo Bras <leobras@redhat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 11/12] x86/resctrl: use smp_call_function_single_fail
Message-ID: <Zc0NmOkQDW1AOSwz@tpad>
References: <20240206185710.116221062@redhat.com>
 <87zfw5k8w8.ffs@tglx>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87zfw5k8w8.ffs@tglx>

On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 04:19:19PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 06 2024 at 15:49, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > Convert update_task_closid_rmid from smp_call_function_single
> > to smp_call_func_single_fail, which will fail in case
> > the target CPU is tagged as block interference CPU.
> 
> You fail again to provide a rationale for this change.
> 
> What's worse is that you fail to explain why you think that creating
> inconistent state is a valid approach.

Well, the patch is broken and needs fixing.