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 pointed out, the reported issue has been fixed in linux-next and there's a raw spinlock there but since the report is from vanilla -rc4, it doesn't have that fix. Will
