On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 5:17 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Yan posted a patch to fudge around the issue[*], I strongly objected (and still > object) to making a functional and confusing code change to fudge around a lockdep > false positive. In that thread I had made another suggestion, which Yan also tried, which was to use subclasses: - in the sched_out path, which cannot race with the others: raw_spin_lock_nested(&per_cpu(wakeup_vcpus_on_cpu_lock, vcpu->cpu), 1); - in the irq and sched_in paths, which can race with each other: raw_spin_lock(&per_cpu(wakeup_vcpus_on_cpu_lock, vcpu->cpu)); Paolo
