On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 10:12:24AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Boqun Feng wrote:
>
> > > BTW., I don't think the #ifdef is necessary: lockdep_init_map_crosslock
> > > should map
> > > to nothing when lockdep is disabled, right?
> >
> > IIUC, lockdep_init_map_crosslock is only defined when
* Boqun Feng wrote:
> > BTW., I don't think the #ifdef is necessary: lockdep_init_map_crosslock
> > should map
> > to nothing when lockdep is disabled, right?
>
> IIUC, lockdep_init_map_crosslock is only defined when
> CONFIG_LOCKDEP_CROSSRELEASE=y,
Then lockdep_init_map_crosslock() should b
On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 09:48:11AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Boqun Feng wrote:
>
> > --- a/kernel/workqueue.c
> > +++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
> > @@ -2431,6 +2431,27 @@ struct wq_barrier {
> > struct task_struct *task; /* purely informational */
> > };
> >
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_LOCK
* Boqun Feng wrote:
> --- a/kernel/workqueue.c
> +++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
> @@ -2431,6 +2431,27 @@ struct wq_barrier {
> struct task_struct *task; /* purely informational */
> };
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP_COMPLETE
> +# define INIT_WQ_BARRIER_ONSTACK(barr, func, target)
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 05:06:23PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 04:14:21PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 01:58:08PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > > > I'm not sure this caused the lockdep warning but, if they belongs to the
> > > > same class even
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 04:14:21PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 01:58:08PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > > I'm not sure this caused the lockdep warning but, if they belongs to the
> > > same class even though they couldn't be the same instance as you said, I
> > > also thin
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 01:58:08PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > I'm not sure this caused the lockdep warning but, if they belongs to the
> > same class even though they couldn't be the same instance as you said, I
> > also think that is another problem and should be fixed.
> >
>
> My point was mo
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 01:40:51PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > > > Worker A : acquired of wfc.work -> wait for cpu_hotplug_lock to be
> > > > released
> > > > Task B : acquired of cpu_hotplug_lock -> wait for lock#3 to be
> > > > released
> > > > Task C : acquired of lock#3 -> wait for compl
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 02:05:06PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 12:05:31PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > > I see...
> > >
> > > Worker A : acquired of wfc.work -> wait for cpu_hotplug_lock to be
> > > released
> > > Task B : acquired of cpu_hotplug_lock -> wait for lock
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 01:37:46PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 12:05:31PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 09:16:37AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:20:20AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > >
> > > > So with the latest fi
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 12:05:31PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > I see...
> >
> > Worker A : acquired of wfc.work -> wait for cpu_hotplug_lock to be released
> > Task B : acquired of cpu_hotplug_lock -> wait for lock#3 to be released
> > Task C : acquired of lock#3 -> wait for completion of bar
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 12:05:31PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 09:16:37AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:20:20AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > > So with the latest fixes there's a new lockdep warning on one of my
> > > testboxes:
> > >
>
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 09:16:37AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:20:20AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > So with the latest fixes there's a new lockdep warning on one of my
> > testboxes:
> >
> > [ 11.322487] EXT4-fs (sda2): mounted filesystem with ordered data mo
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 10:20:20AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> So with the latest fixes there's a new lockdep warning on one of my testboxes:
>
> [ 11.322487] EXT4-fs (sda2): mounted filesystem with ordered data mode.
> Opts: (null)
>
> [ 11.495661] ===
So with the latest fixes there's a new lockdep warning on one of my testboxes:
[ 11.322487] EXT4-fs (sda2): mounted filesystem with ordered data mode. Opts:
(null)
[ 11.495661] ==
[ 11.502093] WARNING: possible circular locking dependenc
On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 12:57:48PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Byungchul Park wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 01:10:19PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > > * Byungchul Park wrote:
> > >
> > > > Change from v7
> > > > - rebase on latest tip/sched/core (Jul 26 2017)
> > > >
* Byungchul Park wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 01:10:19PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Byungchul Park wrote:
> >
> > > Change from v7
> > > - rebase on latest tip/sched/core (Jul 26 2017)
> > > - apply peterz's suggestions
> > > - simplify code of crossrelease_{hist/soft/hard}
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 01:10:19PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Byungchul Park wrote:
>
> > Change from v7
> > - rebase on latest tip/sched/core (Jul 26 2017)
> > - apply peterz's suggestions
> > - simplify code of crossrelease_{hist/soft/hard}_{start/end}
> > - exclude a patc
* Byungchul Park wrote:
> Change from v7
> - rebase on latest tip/sched/core (Jul 26 2017)
> - apply peterz's suggestions
> - simplify code of crossrelease_{hist/soft/hard}_{start/end}
> - exclude a patch avoiding redundant links
> - exclude a patch already applied
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 09:55:56AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 05:50:59PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> >
> > Heh, look what it does...
>
> It does not happen in my machine..
>
> I tihink it happens because of "Simplify xhlock ring buffer invalidation"
> patch of
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 06:37:07PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 05:50:59PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> >
> > Heh, look what it does...
>
> Wait.. execuse me but.. is it a real problem?
I've not tried again with my patch removed -- I'm chasing another issue
atm.
On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 05:50:59PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
>
> Heh, look what it does...
Wait.. execuse me but.. is it a real problem?
>
>
> 4==
> 4WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
> 4.13.0-rc2-00317-gadc6764a3ad
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 09:55:56AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 05:50:59PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> >
> > Heh, look what it does...
>
> It does not happen in my machine..
>
> I tihink it happens because of "Simplify xhlock ring buffer invalidation"
> patch of
On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 05:50:59PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
>
> Heh, look what it does...
It does not happen in my machine..
I tihink it happens because of "Simplify xhlock ring buffer invalidation"
patch of you.
First of all, could you reverse yours and check if it happens, too?
If not,
Heh, look what it does...
4==
4WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
4.13.0-rc2-00317-gadc6764a3adf-dirty #797 Tainted: GW
4--
4startpar/582 is trying to acquir
25 matches
Mail list logo
