On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 02:13:33PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > I can indeed confirm it's running old code; cpuhp_state is no more.
>
> Does this mean the below chain is no longer possible with the current
> linux-next (tip)?
I see I failed to answer this; no it will happen but now reads like:
s/cpuhp_state/&_up/
Where we used to have a single lock protecting the hotplug stuff, we now
have 2, one for bringing stuff up and one for tearing it down.
This got rid of lock cycles that included cpu-up and cpu-down parts;
those are false positives because we cannot do cpu-up and cpu-down
concurrently.
But this report only includes a single (cpu-up) part and therefore is
not affected by that change other than a lock name changing.
