On Wed, 3 Feb 2016, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 07:46:11PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > So I think 874bbfe600a6 is really bogus. It should be reverted. We > > > > already have a proper fix for vmstat 176bed1de5bf ("vmstat: explicitly > > > > schedule per-cpu work on the CPU we need it to run on"). This which > > > > should be used for the stable trees as a replacement. > > > > > > It's not bogus. We can't flip a property that has been guaranteed > > > without any provision for verification. Why do you think vmstat blow > > > up in the first place? vmstat would be the canary case as it runs > > > frequently on all systems. It's exactly the sign that we can't break > > > this guarantee willy-nilly. > > > > You're in complete failure denial mode once again. > > Well, you're in an unnecessary escalation mode as usual. Was the > attitude really necessary? Chill out and read the thread again. > Michal is saying the dwork->cpu assignment was bogus and I was > refuting that. Right, but at the same time you could have admitted, that the current state is buggy and needs a sanity check in unbound_pwq_by_node(). > Michal brought it up here but there's a different thread where Mike > reported NUMA_NO_NODE issue and I already posted the fix. > > http://lkml.kernel.org/g/20160203185425.GK14091@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 5 minute ago w/o cc'ing the people who participated in that discussion. Thanks, tglx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html