From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e28smtp04.in.ibm.com (e28smtp04.in.ibm.com [122.248.162.4]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "e28smtp04.in.ibm.com", Issuer "GeoTrust SSL CA" (not verified)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A9F42C0084 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 12:47:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from /spool/local by e28smtp04.in.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 08:11:06 +0530 Received: from d28relay03.in.ibm.com (d28relay03.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.60]) by d28dlp02.in.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94E30394004E for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 08:17:17 +0530 (IST) Received: from d28av01.in.ibm.com (d28av01.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.63]) by d28relay03.in.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id r5P2lWwH31523028 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 08:17:32 +0530 Received: from d28av01.in.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d28av01.in.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id r5P2lHU1006139 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 02:47:17 GMT Message-ID: <51C904B3.4060509@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 21:47:15 -0500 From: Nathan Fontenot MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Ellerman Subject: Re: [PATCH] Do not update sysfs cpu registration from invalid context References: <51C8543F.6080905@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20130625015057.GC14051@concordia> In-Reply-To: <20130625015057.GC14051@concordia> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 06/24/2013 08:50 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote: > On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 09:14:23AM -0500, Nathan Fontenot wrote: >> The topology update code that updates the cpu node registration in sysfs >> should not be called while in stop_machine(). The register/unregister >> calls take a lock and may sleep. >> >> This patch moves these calls outside of the call to stop_machine(). > > What happens? Do we lockup or do you just get a warning? > > And what commit introduced the breakage? Guilty on on all counts. Hopefully I can still get by with stern warning. -Nathan