On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 03:24:36PM +0100, Michael Holzheu wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Oct 2015 14:01:25 +0200
> Heiko Carstens wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 11:57:06AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 10:22:12AM +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> > > > So, actually this doesn
On Fri, 16 Oct 2015 14:01:25 +0200
Heiko Carstens wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 11:57:06AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 10:22:12AM +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> > > So, actually this doesn't fix the bug and it _seems_ to be reproducible.
> > >
> > > [ FWIW, I will
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 11:57:06AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 10:22:12AM +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> > So, actually this doesn't fix the bug and it _seems_ to be reproducible.
> >
> > [ FWIW, I will be offline for the next two weeks ]
>
> So the series from Oleg wou
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 10:22:12AM +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> So, actually this doesn't fix the bug and it _seems_ to be reproducible.
>
> [ FWIW, I will be offline for the next two weeks ]
So the series from Oleg would be good to try; I can make a git tree for
you, or otherwise stuff the lot
On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 10:41:10AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Hi,
>
> So Heiko reported some 'interesting' fail where stop_two_cpus() got
> stuck in multi_cpu_stop() with one cpu waiting for another that never
> happens.
>
> It _looks_ like the 'other' cpu isn't running and the current best
>
On 10/08, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> To avoid the confusion, let me repeat that I am not arguing with
> this change, perhaps it makes sense too.
>
> But unless I missed something it is not really correct and can't
> fix the problem. So I still think the series I sent should be
> applied first.
...
To avoid the confusion, let me repeat that I am not arguing with
this change, perhaps it makes sense too.
But unless I missed something it is not really correct and can't
fix the problem. So I still think the series I sent should be
applied first.
On 10/07, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> static int sch
On 10/07, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> So Heiko reported some 'interesting' fail where stop_two_cpus() got
> stuck in multi_cpu_stop() with one cpu waiting for another that never
> happens.
>
> It _looks_ like the 'other' cpu isn't running and the current best
> theory is that we race on cpu-up and ge
Hi Oleg,
[auto build test ERROR on v4.3-rc4 -- if it's inappropriate base, please ignore]
config: x86_64-randconfig-x019-201540 (attached as .config)
reproduce:
# save the attached .config to linux build tree
make ARCH=x86_64
All errors (new ones prefixed by >>):
kernel/cpu.
Damn sorry for noise ;)
On 10/07, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> +void stop_machine_park(int cpu)
> +{
> + struct cpu_stopper *stopper = &per_cpu(cpu_stopper, cpu);
> +
> + spin_lock(&stopper->lock);
> + stopper->enabled = false;
> + spin_unlock(&stopper->lock);
Of course, it should als
On 10/07, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 02:30:46PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 10/07, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > >
> > > So Heiko reported some 'interesting' fail where stop_two_cpus() got
> > > stuck in multi_cpu_stop() with one cpu waiting for another that never
> > > ha
On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 02:30:46PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 10/07, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > So Heiko reported some 'interesting' fail where stop_two_cpus() got
> > stuck in multi_cpu_stop() with one cpu waiting for another that never
> > happens.
> >
> > It _looks_ like the 'other' cpu
On 10/07, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> So Heiko reported some 'interesting' fail where stop_two_cpus() got
> stuck in multi_cpu_stop() with one cpu waiting for another that never
> happens.
>
> It _looks_ like the 'other' cpu isn't running and the current best
> theory is that we race on cpu-up and ge
Hi,
So Heiko reported some 'interesting' fail where stop_two_cpus() got
stuck in multi_cpu_stop() with one cpu waiting for another that never
happens.
It _looks_ like the 'other' cpu isn't running and the current best
theory is that we race on cpu-up and get the stop_two_cpus() call in
before the
14 matches
Mail list logo
