On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 09:24:15PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Paul.
>
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 04:38:18PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Well, the decision as to what is too big for -stable is owned by the
> > -stable maintainers, not by me.
>
> Is it
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 06:28:11PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 02:38:30PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > I did take a shot at adding the rcu_sync stuff during this past merge
> > window, but it did not converge quickly enough to make it
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 05:26:22PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 11:11:45PM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> > > In fact, I would say that any userspace-controlled call to *_expedited()
> > > is a bug waiting to happen and a bad idea---because userspace can, wit
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 06:42:19PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 15/09/2015 15:36, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> > I am wondering why the old code behaved in such fatal ways. Is there
> > some interaction between waiting for a reschedule in the
> > synchronize_sched writer and some fork c
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 02:43:19PM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> If exception_enter happens when already in IN_KERNEL state, the
> code still calls context_tracking_exit, which ends up in
> rcu_eqs_exit_common, which explodes with a WARN_ON when it is
> called in a situation where dynticks are not e
in these functions) looked strange at first, but it avoids
a needless unconditional call in cases where the static_key disables
context tracking. (This is due to separate compilation.)
So...
Reviewed-by: Paul E. McKenney
> ---
> include/linux/context_tracking.h | 6 ++
> i
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 03:27:53PM -0500, r...@redhat.com wrote:
> From: Rik van Riel
>
> Export context_tracking_user_enter/exit so it can be used by KVM.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rik van Riel
Reviewed-by: Paul E. McKenney
> ---
> kernel/context_tracking.c | 2 ++
> 1 fi
uest_exit already take care of calling
> vtime_guest_enter and vtime_guest_exit, respectively.
>
> The RCU code only distinguishes between "idle" and "not idle or kernel".
> There should be no need to add an additional (unused) state there.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ri
EXT_TRACKING is
> not set.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rik van Riel
Reviewed-by: Paul E. McKenney
> ---
> include/linux/context_tracking_state.h | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/context_tracking_state.h
> b/include/linux/context_tracking_
ace switching, but also kernel <> guest transitions.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rik van Riel
Reviewed-by: Paul E. McKenney
> ---
> include/linux/context_tracking.h | 8 +---
> kernel/context_tracking.c| 43
> ++--
> 2 files ch
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 01:00:35PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 12:42 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 12:19:28PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 12:14 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> >> wrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 12:19:28PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 12:14 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 11:59:09AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> On 02/10/2015 06:41 AM, r...@redhat.com wrote:
> >> >From: Ri
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 11:59:09AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On 02/10/2015 06:41 AM, r...@redhat.com wrote:
> >From: Rik van Riel
> >
> >The host kernel is not doing anything while the CPU is executing
> >a KVM guest VCPU, so it can be marked as being in an extended
> >quiescent state, ident
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 06:36:47PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 09:25:26AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 11:48:37AM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > > On 02/10/2015 10:28 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > >
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 11:48:37AM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On 02/10/2015 10:28 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 09:41:45AM -0500, r...@redhat.com wrote:
> >> From: Rik van Riel
> >>
> >> These wrapper functions allow architecture code (eg. ARM) to keep
> >> calling c
On Mon, Feb 09, 2015 at 10:03:08PM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 02/09/2015 10:01 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 02:44:17AM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker
> > wrote:
> >> On Mon, Feb 09,
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 02:44:17AM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 09, 2015 at 08:22:59PM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > On 02/09/2015 08:15 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > Hi Rik,
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 09, 2015 at 04:04:38P
On Sat, Feb 07, 2015 at 09:30:41AM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 06, 2015 at 11:14:53PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 06, 2015 at 10:34:21PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Fri, Feb 06, 2015 at 10:53:34PM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
>
On Fri, Feb 06, 2015 at 10:34:21PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 06, 2015 at 10:53:34PM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > On 02/06/2015 06:15 PM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> >
> > >
On Fri, Feb 06, 2015 at 10:53:34PM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 02/06/2015 06:15 PM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>
> > Just a few things then:
> >
> > 1) In this case rename context_tracking_user_enter/exit() to
> > context_tracking_enter()
On Fri, Feb 06, 2015 at 02:50:44PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 06/02/2015 14:46, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > When running a KVM guest on a system with NOHZ_FULL enabled
> >
> > I just need to clarify the motivation first, does the above situation
> > really happen? Ok some distros
On Fri, Feb 06, 2015 at 11:15:57AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 06/02/2015 00:55, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 03:23:48PM -0500, r...@redhat.com wrote:
> >> From: Rik van Riel
> >>
> >> Add the expected ctx_state as
On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 03:23:50PM -0500, r...@redhat.com wrote:
> From: Rik van Riel
>
> Export context_tracking_user_enter/exit so it can be used by KVM.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rik van Riel
Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney
> ---
> kernel/context_tracking.c | 2 ++
> 1 fi
EXT_TRACKING is
> not set.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rik van Riel
Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney
> ---
> include/linux/context_tracking_state.h | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/context_tracking_state.h
> b/include/linux/context_tracking_
hing, but also kernel <> guest transitions.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rik van Riel
Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney
> ---
> include/linux/context_tracking.h | 12 ++--
> kernel/context_tracking.c| 10 +-
> 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
context tracking, so leave those calls
> where they are, instead of moving them into the context tracking
> code.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rik van Riel
Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney
> ---
> include/linux/context_tracking.h | 8 +++-
> include/linux/context_tracking_state.h
On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 02:02:35PM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On 02/05/2015 01:56 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> > The real danger is doing neither.
> >
> > On tick_nohz_full_cpu() CPUs, the exit-to-userspace code should invoke
> > rcu_user_enter(), which sets
On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 01:09:19PM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On 02/05/2015 12:50 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 11:52:37AM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> >> On 02/05/2015 11:44 AM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> >>> Am 05.02.2015 um
On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 11:52:37AM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On 02/05/2015 11:44 AM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> > Am 05.02.2015 um 17:35 schrieb r...@redhat.com:
> >> From: Rik van Riel
> >>
> >> The host kernel is not doing anything while the CPU is executing
> >> a KVM guest VCPU, so it c
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 03:16:57PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> [ Added Paul McKenney ]
>
> On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 19:39:13 +0100
> "Luis R. Rodriguez" wrote:
>
> > > Why not make this a tracepoint? Then you can enable it only when you
> > > want to. As tracepoints are also hooks, you could ad
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 01:07:33PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 12:18 PM, Christian Borntraeger
> wrote:
> >
> > Now: I can reproduces belows miscompile on gcc46 and gcc 47
> > gcc 45 seems ok, gcc 48 is fixed. This makes blacklisting
> > a bit hard, especially since it
On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 10:55:06AM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 09:06:36AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 10:00:09AM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 11:35:06AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 10:00:09AM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 11:35:06AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 06:24:13PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 08:13:54AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 06:24:13PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 08:13:54AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 03:44:26PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 03:36:57PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > &g
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 03:57:14PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 09:56:29PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 01:26:05AM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > Paul, could you review this patch please?
> &
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 01:26:05AM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > Paul, could you review this patch please?
> > > Documentation/memory-barriers.txt says that unlock has a weaker
> > > uni-directional barrier, but in practice srcu_read_unlock calls
> > > smp_mb().
> > >
> > > Is it OK to re
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 09:09:29PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> I noticed that srcu_read_lock/unlock both have a memory barrier,
> so just by moving srcu_read_unlock earlier we can get rid of
> one call to smp_mb().
>
> Unsurprisingly, the gain is small but measureable using the unit test
>
@vger.kernel.org
Cc: kvm-...@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney
Reviewed-by: Josh Triplett
---
arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv.c b/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv.c
index 9de24f8..ec4c28a 100644
--- a
gt; RCU working properly again.
>
> Long term we might want to use proper state tracking (just like
> the dynticks folks) and mark guest state similar to user space
> as an extended grace period, but this is not ready yet.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christian Borntraeger
> Cc: Cornelia Huck
Mackerras
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org
Cc: kvm-...@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney
---
arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv.c b/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv.c
index 80dcc53..c26740e 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 08:26:48AM +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 12:50:49AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> > At the point of up_out label in kvmppc_hv_setup_htab_rma(),
> > srcu read lock is still held.
> >
> > We have to release it before return.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: La
_exclusive_wait+0xb0/0xb0
> [ 732.790032] [] ? prepare_to_wait+0x25/0x90
> [ 732.790032] [] do_async_page_fault+0x56/0xa0
> [ 732.790032] [] async_page_fault+0x28/0x30
>
> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin
Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney
> ---
> arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c | 3 +++
> 1 file ch
On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 08:27:40PM +0900, Tomoki Sekiyama wrote:
> Initialize rcu related variables to avoid warnings about RCU usage while
> slave CPUs is running specified functions. Also notify RCU subsystem before
> the slave CPU is entered into idle state.
Hello, Tomoki,
A few questions and
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 03:44:26PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 03:36:57PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > On 09/12/2012 03:34 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 10:45:22AM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > >> On 09/12/2012 04
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 01:33:37AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 10:13:00AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 05:10:23PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 04:02:25PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 05:10:23PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 04:02:25PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > Most interrupt are delivered to only one vcpu. Use pre-build tables to
> > find interrupt destination instead of looping through all vcpus. In case
> > of logical
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 08:09:38PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-07-31 at 16:57 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> > > What was the next lines? I bet you it was "PASSED". Which means it did
> > > not fail. This is the second bug you found that has
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 07:51:39PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 07:43 +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 09:13:39AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2012-07-31 at 15:50 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > > > On 07/31/2012 03:43 PM, Steven Rostedt wrot
On Sun, May 06, 2012 at 11:34:39PM +0300, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (05/06/12 09:42), Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Sun, May 06, 2012 at 11:55:30AM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > > On 05/03/2012 11:02 PM, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > > > Hello,
>
On Sun, May 06, 2012 at 11:55:30AM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 05/03/2012 11:02 PM, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 3.4-rc5
>
> Whoa.
>
> Looks like inconsistent locking between cpufreq and
> synchronize_srcu_expedited(). kvm triggered this because it is one of
> the few users of sync
On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 06:16:46PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-05-01 at 18:36 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
>
> > > > What bounds the amount of memory waiting to be freed during an rcu grace
> > > > period?
> > >
> > > Most RCU implementations don't have limits, so that could be quite a
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 08:05:15PM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 5:23 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 04:50:35PM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > > Hi all.
> > >
> > > I got a "INFO: SOFTIRQ-safe -&
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 04:50:35PM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote:
> Hi all.
>
> I got a "INFO: SOFTIRQ-safe -> SOFTIRQ-unsafe lock order detected" warning
> while running LTP inside a KVM guest using the recent -next kernel.
>
> It seems that it was initially originated from rcu_torture_rea(), but I
>
gt;
>
> The patch below solves it for me:
>
> "Page ready" async PF can kick vcpu out of idle state much like IRQ.
> We need to tell RCU about this.
This is invoked from an exception or interrupt handler, not from
process-level code? If so:
Reviewed-by: Paul E. McKe
On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 08:54:32PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I got the spew at the bottom of the mail in a KVM guest using the KVM tools
> and running trinity.
>
> I'm not quite sure how default_idle managed to trigger a pagefault, so that
> part looks odd to me.
Wrapping the off
On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 11:22:29AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-01-31 at 14:24 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> > > > Can we get it back to speed by scheduling a work function on all cpus?
> > > > wouldn't that force a quiescent
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 02:50:07PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-01-31 at 15:47 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>
> > They really need to return quickly to userspace, and they really need to
> > perform some operation between rcu_assign_pointer() and returning, so no.
>
> Bugger :/
>
> >
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 05:28:46PM -0700, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 08/17/2011 05:25 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >> >
> >> Wouldn't scheduling-clock interrupt kick vcpu out of a guest mode much
> >> earlier then 30 seconds?
> >
> >The scheduli
On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 02:55:29AM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 03:05:20PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 12:50:15AM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 01:43:27PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
&
On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 12:50:15AM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 01:43:27PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Hello, Gleb,
> >
> > I was looking at KVM's call to rcu_virt_note_context_switch()
> > in kvm_guest_enter(), and noting th
Hello, Gleb,
I was looking at KVM's call to rcu_virt_note_context_switch()
in kvm_guest_enter(), and noting the comment talking about treating
guest mode like user-mode execution is. One difference between RCU's
treatment of KVM guest execution and user-mode execution is that RCU
notes a context
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 09:55:20AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> With the abstraction that each socket were a backend of a
> queue for userspace, this patch adds multiqueue support for
> tap device by allowing multiple sockets to be attached to a
> tap device. Then we could parallize the transmission
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 09:25:22PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 16:42 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 06:26:01PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > > Sorry for the delay on this.
> >
> > Actually, you might have ha
massive scheduler lock
contention, which might well be the cause of the problems that you
are seeing.
Thanx, Paul
> On Sat, 2011-06-04 at 09:30 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 09:26:15AM +0300, Sasha Levi
On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 09:04:34PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> Using rcu to protect shadow pages table to be freed, so we can safely walk it,
> it should run fast and is needed by mmio page fault
A couple of question below.
Thanx, Paul
>
On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 09:26:15AM +0300, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-06-03 at 16:05 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 01:54:45AM +0300, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2011-06-03 at 14:20 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On S
On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 01:54:45AM +0300, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-06-03 at 14:20 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 12:03:59AM +0300, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2011-06-03 at 13:22 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On F
On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 12:03:59AM +0300, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-06-03 at 13:22 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 10:56:20PM +0300, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2011-06-03 at 12:31 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On F
On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 10:56:20PM +0300, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-06-03 at 12:31 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 10:54:19AM +0300, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2011-06-03 at 09:34 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
.37, I've looked into it to
> > > find what might have caused this issue.
> > >
> > > I've bisected guest kernels and found that the problem starts with:
> > >
> > > a26ac2455ffcf3be5c6ef92bc6df7182700f2114 is the first bad commit
> > &
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 01:01:04PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> * Mathieu Desnoyers (mathieu.desnoy...@efficios.com) wrote:
> > * Sasha Levin (levinsasha...@gmail.com) wrote:
> [...]
> > > Hi Mathieu!
> > >
> > > In tools/kvm/ we use a rb-tree (same one used by the kernel) with the
> > > augm
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 09:54:50PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> > And the other reason that you want to mark the readers is for debug
> > purposes. Murphy being who he is, you will some day need to check
> > for someone calling the &q
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 09:33:27PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> > On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 06:00:00PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > > On 05/29/2011 05:27 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > >* Avi Kivity wrote:
> > > >
>
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 08:31:30AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 09:19:48AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Avi Kivity wrote:
> >
> > > Yes, this is equivalent to the kernel's stop_machine_run(). It's a
> > >
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 06:00:00PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 05/29/2011 05:27 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >* Avi Kivity wrote:
> >
> >> I don't understand how you expect per_cpu to work in userspace. As
> >> soon as you calculate the per-cpu address, it can be invalidated.
> >> It doesn't hel
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 09:19:48AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Avi Kivity wrote:
>
> > Yes, this is equivalent to the kernel's stop_machine_run(). It's a
> > heavyweight method but it should work just fine.
>
> Yeah. It is fine for reconfiguration/configuration-only kind of write
> paths
On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 05:24:08PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Sasha Levin wrote:
>
> > So the basic plan here is to allocate a futex(?) for each VCPU
> > thread, and have the writer thread lock all futexes when it needs
> > to write?
> >
> > If we assume we only have one writer thread, i
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 11:12:20AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> > > > > I'm CC'ing Paul and Mathieu as well for urcu.
> >
> > I am hoping we can get better convergence between the user-level
> > and kernel-le
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 07:05:08PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> * Ingo Molnar (mi...@elte.hu) wrote:
> >
> > * Pekka Enberg wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 9:11 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > > > On 05/26/2011 09:05 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I've added some
On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 11:51:34AM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 05/04/2011 07:35 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 04:31:03PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >> Provide rcu_virt_note_context_switch() for vitalization use to note
> >> quiesce
On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 04:31:03PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> Provide rcu_virt_note_context_switch() for vitalization use to note
> quiescent state during guest entry.
Very good, queued on -rcu.
Unless you tell me otherwise, I will assume that you want to carry the
patch modifying KVM to use th
On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 05:10:03PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 06:36:08AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 01:56:12PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > > On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 05:59:28AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 01:56:12PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 05:59:28AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 09:02:39PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 01:39:04AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 09:02:39PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 01:39:04AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 01:36:18AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 12:52:02PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > &g
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 12:52:02PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
Hmmm This is interesting. KVM being a module, we either expand
TINY_RCU's size a bit by making rcu_note_context_switch() be a real
function in rcutiny.c and adding an export, or we expand it by adding
two exports.
I would like to
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 01:36:18AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 12:52:02PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>
> Hmmm This is interesting. KVM being a module, we either expand
> TINY_RCU's size a bit by making rcu_note_context_switch() be a real
> f
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 03:41:41PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 08:55:28AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 03:38:24PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > > Hello Paul,
> > >
> > > I have a question about RCU + KVM.
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 10:47:04AM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 04/26/2011 06:55 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 03:38:24PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >> Hello Paul,
> >>
> >> I have a question about RCU + KVM. KVM does not hold a
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 03:38:24PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> Hello Paul,
>
> I have a question about RCU + KVM. KVM does not hold any references to RCU
> protected data when it switches CPU into a guest mode. In fact switching
> to a guest mode is very similar to exiting to userspase from RCU p
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 10:10:31PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 11:02:33AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 07:55:00PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 09:48:34AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wro
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 07:55:00PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 09:48:34AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 01:08:45PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > When built with rcu checks enabled, vhost triggers
> > &
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 01:08:45PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> When built with rcu checks enabled, vhost triggers
> bogus warnings as vhost features are read without
> dev->mutex sometimes.
> Fixing it properly is not trivial as vhost.h does not
> know which lockdep classes it will be used u
On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 03:56:56PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 01:18:18AM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 03:13:03PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 09:47:09PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wro
On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 01:18:18AM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 03:13:03PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 09:47:09PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 11:26:16AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wro
On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 09:47:09PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 11:26:16AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 09:11:30PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 11:00:37AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wro
On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 09:11:30PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 11:00:37AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 07:09:01PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > This adds a test module for vhost infrastructure.
> > >
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 07:09:01PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> This adds a test module for vhost infrastructure.
> Intentionally not tied to kbuild to prevent people
> from installing and loading it accidentally.
>
> Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin
On question below.
> ---
>
> diff --
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 06:22:21PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 10:24:01PM +0200, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Replace vhost_workqueue with per-vhost kthread. Other than callback
> > argument change from struct work_struct * to struct vhost_poll *,
> > there's no visible chan
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 11:17:22AM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 04/21/2010 01:21 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> >>Subject: [PATCH] kvm: add missing srcu_read_lock()
> >>
> >>I got this dmesg due to srcu_read_lock() is mis
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 02:29:29PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 01:08:29PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >> On 04/19/2010 12:58 PM, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> >>> Applied the patch I just sent and let CONFIG_PROVE_RCU=y,
> >>> we can got the following dm
1 - 100 of 133 matches
Mail list logo
