On 09/09/2025 19:03, Will Deacon wrote: > On Tue, Sep 09, 2025 at 05:43:16PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 09/09/2025 12:15, Will Deacon wrote: >>> Krzysztof, >>> >>> On Sat, Sep 06, 2025 at 09:07:02AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> On 05/09/2025 19:43, Mostafa Saleh wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As this value is only read once, it doesn't require to be stable, so >>>>>> >>>>>> Why it does not need to be stable? Onlining wrong CPU number is not >>>>>> desired... >>>>>> >>>>>>> just use "raw_smp_processor_id" instead. >>>>>> >>>>>> You might be just hiding some other real issue, because above stacktrace >>>>>> is from gs101_cpuhp_pmu_online() which IRQs disabled and preemption >>>>>> disabled. Provide analysis of the warning, instead of just making it >>>>>> disappear. >>>>> >>>>> Not sure I understand, how is preemption disabled? that wouldn't fire >>>>> in that case. >>>> >>>> Because there is explicit preempt_disable(). >>> >>> Where do you see that? >> >> I did look at the code. >> >> All the calls I saw (including calltrace from commit msg) were under raw >> spinlock and raw spinlock does: >> >> preempt_disable(); > > The backtrace doesn't contain a raw spinlock. As Peter subsequently How backtrace could contain spinlock? Backtrace points you the calls and clearly in these calls in the source code there is raw spinlock. > pointed out, the reported issue has been fixed in linux-next and there's Not in Linux next, but in maintainer tree. Who is going to apply the patch? Maintainer. On what tree? Maintainer's tree. > a raw spinlock there but since the report is from vanilla -rc4, it > doesn't have that fix. So that's the argument - instead of trying maintainer's tree or linux-next, or even trying to put some effort and investigate why maintainer claims that "gs101_cpuhp_pmu_online() which IRQs disabled and preemption disabled." you just respond "there is no fix in rc release". I gave the technical objection based on reading code. Contributor instead of checking this or doing basic work - developing on tree which has fixes, just bounced back. And you complain that I "could try a bit harder to fill". Keep such comments to yourself. Best regards, Krzysztof
