Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-195693-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Date: Thu, 30 May 2024 13:01:18 -0400
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Chris von Recklinghausen <crecklin@redhat.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tick/nohz_full: don't abuse smp_call_function_single()
 in tick_setup_device()
Message-ID: <Zliw3phiMCdGYwxq@redhat.com>
References: <20240522151742.GA10400@redhat.com>
 <20240528122019.GA28794@redhat.com>
 <ZliSt-RDyxf1bZ_t@localhost.localdomain>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZliSt-RDyxf1bZ_t@localhost.localdomain>

On 05/30, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>
> Looks good, but can we have a WARN_ONCE(tick_do_timer_cpu != tick_do_timer_boot_cpu)
> right before that, just to make sure our assumptions above are right forever and
> the boot CPU hasn't stopped the tick up to that point?

Sure, I thought about the additional sanity checks too. Although I had something
different in mind.

Frederic, et al, I am on private trip again without my working laptop, can't read
the code. I'll reply on Saturday, OK?

Thanks for review!

Oleg.