On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 01:54:28PM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 05:24:11AM CEST, paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
> >On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 01:45:28PM -0400, Joe Lawrence wrote:
> >> On Tue, 7 Oct 2014 06:43:29 -0700
> >> "Paul E. McKenney" wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Tue, Oct 07,
Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 05:24:11AM CEST, paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
>On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 01:45:28PM -0400, Joe Lawrence wrote:
>> On Tue, 7 Oct 2014 06:43:29 -0700
>> "Paul E. McKenney" wrote:
>>
>> > On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 09:29:42AM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> [ ... snip ... ]
>> > >
On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 01:45:28PM -0400, Joe Lawrence wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Oct 2014 06:43:29 -0700
> "Paul E. McKenney" wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 09:29:42AM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> [ ... snip ... ]
> > >
> > > Paul, Tehun, how do you propose to fix this on older kernels which do
> >
On Tue, 7 Oct 2014 06:43:29 -0700
"Paul E. McKenney" wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 09:29:42AM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
[ ... snip ... ]
> >
> > Paul, Tehun, how do you propose to fix this on older kernels which do
> > not have rcu_note_voluntary_context_switch? I'm particullary interested
> >
On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 09:29:42AM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 06:21:58AM CEST, paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
> >On Sun, Oct 05, 2014 at 03:47:48PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> >> On Sun, Oct 05, 2014 at 03:21:19PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> >> > On Sun, Oct 05, 2014 at 01:24:21
Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 06:21:58AM CEST, paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
>On Sun, Oct 05, 2014 at 03:47:48PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 05, 2014 at 03:21:19PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> > On Sun, Oct 05, 2014 at 01:24:21PM -0400, Joe Lawrence wrote:
>> > > Similar to the stop_machine dea
On Sun, Oct 05, 2014 at 03:47:48PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 05, 2014 at 03:21:19PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 05, 2014 at 01:24:21PM -0400, Joe Lawrence wrote:
> > > Similar to the stop_machine deadlock scenario on !PREEMPT kernels
> > > addressed in b22ce2785d97 "workqueu
On Sun, Oct 05, 2014 at 03:21:19PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 05, 2014 at 01:24:21PM -0400, Joe Lawrence wrote:
> > Similar to the stop_machine deadlock scenario on !PREEMPT kernels
> > addressed in b22ce2785d97 "workqueue: cond_resched() after processing
> > each work item", kworker thr
On Sun, Oct 05, 2014 at 01:24:21PM -0400, Joe Lawrence wrote:
> Similar to the stop_machine deadlock scenario on !PREEMPT kernels
> addressed in b22ce2785d97 "workqueue: cond_resched() after processing
> each work item", kworker threads requeueing back-to-back with zero jiffy
> delay can stall RCU.
Similar to the stop_machine deadlock scenario on !PREEMPT kernels
addressed in b22ce2785d97 "workqueue: cond_resched() after processing
each work item", kworker threads requeueing back-to-back with zero jiffy
delay can stall RCU. The cond_resched call introduced in that fix will
yield only iff ther
10 matches
Mail list logo