From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S965154AbcBCRNX (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 3 Feb 2016 12:13:23 -0500
Received: from mail-wm0-f51.google.com ([74.125.82.51]:35147 "EHLO
	mail-wm0-f51.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S964785AbcBCRNT (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 3 Feb 2016 12:13:19 -0500
Message-ID: <1454519595.6148.18.camel@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Crashes with 874bbfe600a6 in 3.18.25
From: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>,
        Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk>,
        Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@oracle.com>, Shaohua Li <shli@fb.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, stable@vger.kernel.org,
        Daniel Bilik <daniel.bilik@neosystem.cz>
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2016 18:13:15 +0100
In-Reply-To: <20160203170652.GI14091@mtj.duckdns.org>
References: <20160122160903.GH32380@htj.duckdns.org>
	 <1453515623.3734.156.camel@decadent.org.uk>
	 <alpine.DEB.2.11.1601231710210.3886@nanos>
	 <20160126093400.GV24938@quack.suse.cz>
	 <20160126111438.GA731@pathway.suse.cz>
	 <alpine.DEB.2.11.1601261352010.3886@nanos> <56B1C9E4.4020400@suse.cz>
	 <20160203122855.GB6762@dhcp22.suse.cz>
	 <20160203162441.GE14091@mtj.duckdns.org>
	 <1454518913.6148.15.camel@gmail.com>
	 <20160203170652.GI14091@mtj.duckdns.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.16.5 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, 2016-02-03 at 12:06 -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 06:01:53PM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > Hm, so it's ok to queue work to an offline CPU?  What happens if it
> > doesn't come back for an eternity or two?
> 
> Right now, it just loses affinity.  A more interesting case is a cpu
> going offline whlie work items bound to the cpu are still running and
> the root problem is that we've never distinguished between affinity
> for correctness and optimization and thus can't flush or warn on the
> stagglers.  The plan is to ensure that all correctness users specify
> the CPU explicitly.  Once we're there, we can warn on illegal usages.

Ah, and the rest (the vast majority) can then be safely deflected away
from nohz_full cpus.

	-Mike