On 05/02/2014 04:37 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
* Fernando Lopez-Lezcano | 2014-04-26 11:29:04 [-0700]:
Saw this a moment ago (3.14.1 + rt1, Fedora 19 laptop - I think I
have seen something similar in 3.12.x-r):
Yes, you did: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/3/7/163
You did not test I've s
* Fernando Lopez-Lezcano | 2014-04-26 11:29:04 [-0700]:
>Saw this a moment ago (3.14.1 + rt1, Fedora 19 laptop - I think I
>have seen something similar in 3.12.x-r):
Yes, you did: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/3/7/163
You did not test I've sent. Care to do so?
>Apr 26 11:16:11 localhost kernel: [
On Fri, 2014-05-02 at 12:09 +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> * Mike Galbraith | 2014-04-19 16:46:06 [+0200]:
>
> >Hi Sebastian,
> Hi Mike,
>
> >This hunk in hotplug-light-get-online-cpus.patch looks like a bug.
> >
> >@@ -333,7 +449,7 @@ static int __ref _cpu_down(unsigned int
> >
* Mike Galbraith | 2014-04-21 05:31:18 [+0200]:
>Another little bug. This hunk of patches/stomp-machine-raw-lock.patch
>should be while (atomic_read(&done.nr_todo))
Thanks, fixed up.
Sebastian
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message t
* Mike Galbraith | 2014-04-19 16:46:06 [+0200]:
>Hi Sebastian,
Hi Mike,
>This hunk in hotplug-light-get-online-cpus.patch looks like a bug.
>
>@@ -333,7 +449,7 @@ static int __ref _cpu_down(unsigned int
>/* CPU didn't die: tell everyone. Can't complain. */
>smpboo
On Thu, 2014-05-01 at 14:42 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 01 May 2014 19:36:18 +0200
> Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> > Hah! I knew you were just hiding, you sneaky little SOB ;-)
>
> What's this from? A new bug that had all the patches applied? Or was
> this without one of the patches?
On Thu, 01 May 2014 19:36:18 +0200
Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-04-30 at 11:48 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 17:15:57 +0200
> > Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 2014-04-30 at 11:11 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Another little bug. This hun
On Wed, 2014-04-30 at 11:48 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 17:15:57 +0200
> Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2014-04-30 at 11:11 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >
> > > > Another little bug. This hunk of patches/stomp-machine-raw-lock.patch
> > > > should be while (atomic
On Wed, 2014-04-30 at 11:48 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 17:15:57 +0200
> Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2014-04-30 at 11:11 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >
> > > > Another little bug. This hunk of patches/stomp-machine-raw-lock.patch
> > > > should be while (atomic
On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 17:15:57 +0200
Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-04-30 at 11:11 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> > > Another little bug. This hunk of patches/stomp-machine-raw-lock.patch
> > > should be while (atomic_read(&done.nr_todo))
> > >
> > > @@ -647,7 +671,7 @@ int stop_machine
I fired off a 100 iteration run on 64 core box. If it's still alive in
the morning, it should still be busy as hell.
-Mike
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.
On Wed, 2014-04-30 at 11:11 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > Another little bug. This hunk of patches/stomp-machine-raw-lock.patch
> > should be while (atomic_read(&done.nr_todo))
> >
> > @@ -647,7 +671,7 @@ int stop_machine_from_inactive_cpu(int (
> > ret = multi_cpu_stop(&msdata);
> >
On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 16:54:46 +0200
Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-04-30 at 10:33 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 10:19:19 -0400
> > Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >
> > > I'm testing it now. But could you please post them as regular patches.
> > > They were attachments to t
On Wed, 2014-04-30 at 10:33 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 10:19:19 -0400
> Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> > I'm testing it now. But could you please post them as regular patches.
> > They were attachments to this thread, and were not something that stood
> > out.
>
> With your t
On Wed, 2014-04-30 at 10:19 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 16:00:03 +0200
> Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2014-04-30 at 09:15 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 15:06:29 +0200
> > > Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > The End.. I hope. I'v
On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 10:19:19 -0400
Steven Rostedt wrote:
> I'm testing it now. But could you please post them as regular patches.
> They were attachments to this thread, and were not something that stood
> out.
With your two patches, it still crashes exactly the same way. I
probably should remov
On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 16:00:03 +0200
Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-04-30 at 09:15 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 15:06:29 +0200
> > Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >
> >
> > > The End.. I hope. I've had enough hotplug entertainment for a while.
> >
> > Not for me. 3.14-rt
On Wed, 2014-04-30 at 09:15 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 15:06:29 +0200
> Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
>
> > The End.. I hope. I've had enough hotplug entertainment for a while.
>
> Not for me. 3.14-rt stress-cpu-hotplug crashes quickly. But it's a
> different issues than wha
On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 15:06:29 +0200
Mike Galbraith wrote:
> The End.. I hope. I've had enough hotplug entertainment for a while.
Not for me. 3.14-rt stress-cpu-hotplug crashes quickly. But it's a
different issues than what my patch addressed. I'm still debugging it.
-- Steve
--
To unsubscribe
On Wed, 2014-04-30 at 09:43 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-04-29 at 20:13 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 07:21:09 +0200
> > Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 2014-04-28 at 16:37 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Seems that migrate_disable()
On Tue, 2014-04-29 at 20:13 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 07:21:09 +0200
> Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2014-04-28 at 16:37 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >
> > > > Seems that migrate_disable() must be called before taking the lock as
> > > > it is done in every oth
On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 07:21:09 +0200
Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-04-28 at 16:37 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> > > Seems that migrate_disable() must be called before taking the lock as
> > > it is done in every other location.
> >
> > And for tasklist_lock, seems you also MUST do that
On Mon, 2014-04-28 at 16:37 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > Seems that migrate_disable() must be called before taking the lock as
> > it is done in every other location.
>
> And for tasklist_lock, seems you also MUST do that prior to trylock as
> well, else you'll run afoul of the hotplug beast
On Mon, 2014-04-28 at 16:37 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-04-28 at 10:18 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 11:09:46 +0200
> > Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >
> > > migrate_disable-pushd-down-in-atomic_dec_and_spin_lo.patch
> > >
> > > bug: migrate_disable() after bl
On Mon, 2014-04-28 at 10:18 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 11:09:46 +0200
> Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> > migrate_disable-pushd-down-in-atomic_dec_and_spin_lo.patch
> >
> > bug: migrate_disable() after blocking is too late.
> >
> > @@ -1028,12 +1028,12 @@ int atomic_dec_and_
On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 11:09:46 +0200
Mike Galbraith wrote:
> migrate_disable-pushd-down-in-atomic_dec_and_spin_lo.patch
>
> bug: migrate_disable() after blocking is too late.
>
> @@ -1028,12 +1028,12 @@ int atomic_dec_and_spin_lock(atomic_t *a
> /* Subtract 1 from counter unless that dro
On Mon, 2014-04-28 at 07:09 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> Hi Nicholas,
>
> On Sat, 2014-04-26 at 15:58 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Sat, 2014-04-26 at 10:38 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2014-04-25 at 09:40 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hotplug can still deadl
Hi Nicholas,
On Sat, 2014-04-26 at 15:58 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Sat, 2014-04-26 at 10:38 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Fri, 2014-04-25 at 09:40 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >
> > > Hotplug can still deadlock in rt trees too, and will if you beat it
> > > hard.
> >
> > Box ac
On 04/11/2014 11:57 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
Dear RT folks!
I'm pleased to announce the v3.14-rt1 patch setty).
Changes since v3.12.15-rt25
- I dropped the sparc64 patches I had in the queue. They did not apply
cleanly, the code in v3.14 changed in the MMU area. Here is where I
On Sat, 2014-04-26 at 10:38 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-04-25 at 09:40 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> > Hotplug can still deadlock in rt trees too, and will if you beat it
> > hard.
>
> Box actually deadlocks like so.
...
3.12-rt looks a bit busted migrate_disable/enable() wi
On Fri, 2014-04-25 at 09:40 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> Hotplug can still deadlock in rt trees too, and will if you beat it
> hard.
Box actually deadlocks like so.
CPU3 boot.kdump
sys_wait4
On Sat, 2014-04-19 at 16:46 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> Hi Sebastian,
>
> On Fri, 2014-04-11 at 20:57 +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > Dear RT folks!
> >
> > I'm pleased to announce the v3.14-rt1 patch set.
>
> This hunk in hotplug-light-get-online-cpus.patch looks like a bug.
>
On Thu, 2014-04-24 at 09:12 +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 04/24/2014 06:06 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > Turning lockdep on, it says it's busted.
>
> http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-rt-users/msg11179.html
I was heading toward the same conclusion while regression testing.
Guess
On 04/24/2014 06:06 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> Turning lockdep on, it says it's busted.
http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-rt-users/msg11179.html
Sebastian
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majord
Turning lockdep on, it says it's busted.
(I'll go stare at it, maybe the beast will blink first for a change)
[0.00] Lock dependency validator: Copyright (c) 2006 Red Hat, Inc.,
Ingo Molnar
[0.00] ... MAX_LOCKDEP_SUBCLASSES: 8
[0.00] ... MAX_LOCK_DEPTH: 48
[
On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 12:37:05 +0200
Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-04-11 at 20:57 +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>
> > This -RT series didn't crashed within ~4h testing on my ARM and
> > x86-32.
> > x86-64 crashed after I started hackbench. I figured out that the crash
> > does not
On Fri, 2014-04-11 at 20:57 +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> This -RT series didn't crashed within ~4h testing on my ARM and
> x86-32.
> x86-64 crashed after I started hackbench. I figured out that the crash
> does not happen with lazy-preempt disabled. Therefore the last but one
> patch
On Sat, 2014-04-19 at 16:46 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> Hi Sebastian,
>
> On Fri, 2014-04-11 at 20:57 +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > Dear RT folks!
> >
> > I'm pleased to announce the v3.14-rt1 patch set.
>
> This hunk in hotplug-light-get-online-cpus.patch looks like a bug.
>
Hi Sebastian,
On Fri, 2014-04-11 at 20:57 +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> Dear RT folks!
>
> I'm pleased to announce the v3.14-rt1 patch set.
This hunk in hotplug-light-get-online-cpus.patch looks like a bug.
@@ -333,7 +449,7 @@ static int __ref _cpu_down(unsigned int
11.04.2014 22:57, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior пишет:
Dear RT folks!
I'm pleased to announce the v3.14-rt1 patch set.
Hray!
--
Pavel.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body
Dear RT folks!
I'm pleased to announce the v3.14-rt1 patch set.
Changes since v3.12.15-rt25
- I dropped the sparc64 patches I had in the queue. They did not apply
cleanly, the code in v3.14 changed in the MMU area. Here is where I
remembered that it was not working perfectly either.
- Scott
41 matches
Mail list logo