On (05/07/12 10:52), Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 05/07/2012 06:47 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > 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/
On 05/07/2012 06:47 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> 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:
> > > >
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,
> > > > 3.4-rc5
> > >
> > > Whoa.
> > >
> > > L
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,
> > > 3.4-rc5
> >
> > Whoa.
> >
> > Looks like inconsistent locking between cpufreq and
> > synchronize_srcu_expedited().
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 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 synchronize_srcu_expedited(), but I don't think it is
doing anything wrong directl
