From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2017 15:47:28 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Hannes Reinecke Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Jens Axboe , Christian Borntraeger , Bart Van Assche , "linux-block@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: 4.14: WARNING: CPU: 4 PID: 2895 at block/blk-mq.c:1144 with virtio-blk (also 4.12 stable) Message-ID: <20171123144728.GA30139@lst.de> References: <276625a9-44fb-719d-9281-caacefdbb99f@de.ibm.com> <1ddd1cd4-2862-849e-7849-82544bcb86be@de.ibm.com> <08e6f35a-4f49-973e-99f7-6087b44337c4@kernel.dk> <20171122072857.GA19338@lst.de> <20171123143453.GA29715@lst.de> <07e95492-9237-5c0c-fae9-c5704c735d38@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <07e95492-9237-5c0c-fae9-c5704c735d38@suse.de> List-ID: [fullquote deleted] > What will happen for the CPU hotplug case? > Wouldn't we route I/O to a disabled CPU with this patch? Why would we route I/O to a disabled CPU (we generally route I/O to devices to start with). How would including possible but not present cpus change anything?