From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46A1760DE5 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2024 19:06:02 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1707937564; cv=none; b=AadA+kFpV03bJDqDs9VKL8s/vysRSP0hqxOhVip1A0Ue0+XElJhBiy/N3IlstrMqdBeb5YlAZ3j3o/rNCW+T+3rgxMF+FqF0MflHV0Ml3Dg0u3Xrdi54dsJSNVlfsBNgZWfkLH4KxrtDqDGYAw8xUNpW7HDItrwmsE961D1HGlY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1707937564; c=relaxed/simple; bh=xFMeZwcDHHVXswxCzpJihYdm2tRWpo2qchzwb+I7kKM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=BSFT3GmcXaXYMLk2k4mWuMLgQ83P/JH41kGhMPyZluM+oIDfea1U0sNGMPsWM76Pxn9TkDHCg5/OpIpk8sXZt4QB0MEwPPjRJ1rKJm5kdneP6xs2Aevxgy5tPmkagNRjE2UrRJ3xXn5K7dNGNIMSbLJAsEOKdOzu+6XBG1Ba5xo= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b=YHJyqyec; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="YHJyqyec" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1707937562; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=rrj06WBEVkGII72TIMpbKKvXYs1O1D5VjTMRDkQroAo=; b=YHJyqyecLY/RDx9opP+hcb8NQ5PIut1CAsJdobdB/NXenyXAarMSRmNDjzlSICA8K8XxYT BLMAfNtzCGwl8vdYN8UXGN+xTeZLov8YJGlCrvV305T07hwQO3MrdsUCDJApif/sskdCCz j0bYeiuGoVEErCUmyjGc47acEFBZvXQ= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-373-Px-Z8yAsN9m3hy992gZR6A-1; Wed, 14 Feb 2024 14:05:58 -0500 X-MC-Unique: Px-Z8yAsN9m3hy992gZR6A-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.4]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AFC411005055; Wed, 14 Feb 2024 19:05:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tpad.localdomain (unknown [10.96.133.6]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DC781200AE71; Wed, 14 Feb 2024 19:05:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: by tpad.localdomain (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 35EF440419F4D; Wed, 14 Feb 2024 15:59:36 -0300 (-03) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 15:59:36 -0300 From: Marcelo Tosatti To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Daniel Bristot de Oliveira , Juri Lelli , Valentin Schneider , Frederic Weisbecker , Leonardo Bras , Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [patch 11/12] x86/resctrl: use smp_call_function_single_fail Message-ID: References: <20240206185710.116221062@redhat.com> <87zfw5k8w8.ffs@tglx> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87zfw5k8w8.ffs@tglx> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.11.54.4 On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 04:19:19PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Tue, Feb 06 2024 at 15:49, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > Convert update_task_closid_rmid from smp_call_function_single > > to smp_call_func_single_fail, which will fail in case > > the target CPU is tagged as block interference CPU. > > You fail again to provide a rationale for this change. > > What's worse is that you fail to explain why you think that creating > inconistent state is a valid approach. Well, the patch is broken and needs fixing.