From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1751823AbdJBUpM (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Mon, 2 Oct 2017 16:45:12 -0400
Received: from Galois.linutronix.de ([146.0.238.70]:50821 "EHLO
        Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751059AbdJBUpL (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 2 Oct 2017 16:45:11 -0400
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 22:45:05 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Don Zickus <dzickus@redhat.com>
cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
        ppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC GIT Pull] core watchdog sanitizing
In-Reply-To: <20171002203209.rjug625pfmgh674j@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1710022243480.2114@nanos>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1710011217510.3874@nanos> <CA+55aFxQsmSb=zohGZOZK7eR4n5xOHNArmCa9j1b7+wJ+khQrg@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1710021957480.2114@nanos> <CA+55aFyVX_aPac8dSJPED-XLTtfQOYe_eCV7HdYKABgGazWHAg@mail.gmail.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.20.1710022105570.2114@nanos> <20171002203209.rjug625pfmgh674j@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
X-Linutronix-Spam-Score: -1.0
X-Linutronix-Spam-Level: -
X-Linutronix-Spam-Status: No , -1.0 points, 5.0 required,  ALL_TRUSTED=-1,SHORTCIRCUIT=-0.0001
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, 2 Oct 2017, Don Zickus wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 07:32:57PM +0000, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >  static void softlockup_reconfigure_threads(void)
> 
> There is a second copy of ^^^^, you will need to add identical locking there
> too.

Good catch, but then we might move it further out
 
> > +	cpus_read_unlock();
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Must be called outside the cpus locked section to prevent
> > +	 * recursive locking in the perf code.
> > +	 */
> > +	__lockup_detector_cleanup();

Or not due to this ....

Thanks,

	tglx