The following bug can be triggered by hot adding and removing a large number of
xen domain0's vcpus repeatedly:

	BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 0000000000000004 IP: [..] find_busiest_group
	PGD 5a9d5067 PUD 13067 PMD 0
	Oops: 0000 [#3] SMP
	[...]
	Call Trace:
	load_balance
	? _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore
	idle_balance
	__schedule
	schedule
	schedule_timeout
	? lock_timer_base
	schedule_timeout_uninterruptible
	msleep
	lock_device_hotplug_sysfs
	online_store
	dev_attr_store
	sysfs_write_file
	vfs_write
	SyS_write
	system_call_fastpath

Last level cache shared mask is built during CPU up and the
build_sched_domain() routine takes advantage of it to setup
the sched domain CPU topology.

However, llc_shared_mask is not released during CPU disable,
which leads to an invalid sched domainCPU topology.

This patch fix it by releasing the llc_shared_mask correctly
during CPU disable.

Yasuaki also reported that this can happen on real hardware:

  https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/7/22/1018

His case is here:

	==
	Here is an example on my system.
	My system has 4 sockets and each socket has 15 cores and HT is
	enabled. In this case, each core of sockes is numbered as
	follows:

		 | CPU#
	Socket#0 | 0-14 , 60-74
	Socket#1 | 15-29, 75-89
	Socket#2 | 30-44, 90-104
	Socket#3 | 45-59, 105-119

	Then llc_shared_mask of CPU#30 has 0x3fff80000001fffc0000000.

	It means that last level cache of Socket#2 is shared with
	CPU#30-44 and 90-104.

	When hot-removing socket#2 and #3, each core of sockets is
	numbered as follows:

		 | CPU#
	Socket#0 | 0-14 , 60-74
	Socket#1 | 15-29, 75-89

	But llc_shared_mask is not cleared. So llc_shared_mask of CPU#30
	remains having 0x3fff80000001fffc0000000.

	After that, when hot-adding socket#2 and #3, each core of
	sockets is numbered as follows:

		 | CPU#
	Socket#0 | 0-14 , 60-74
	Socket#1 | 15-29, 75-89
	Socket#2 | 30-59
	Socket#3 | 90-119

	Then llc_shared_mask of CPU#30 becomes
	0x3fff8000fffffffc0000000. It means that last level cache of
	Socket#2 is shared with CPU#30-59 and 90-104. So the mask has
	the wrong value.
Signed-off-by: NWanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@linux.intel.com>
Tested-by: NLinn Crosetto <linn@hp.com>
Reviewed-by: NBorislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
Reviewed-by: NToshi Kani <toshi.kani@hp.com>
Reviewed-by: NYasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: Prarit Bhargava <prarit@redhat.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <srostedt@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1411547885-48165-1-git-send-email-wanpeng.li@linux.intel.comSigned-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>