Hi all,
Changes since 20190821:
The pinctrl tree lost its build failure.
The akpm-current tree gained a conflict against the hmm tree.
Non-merge commits (relative to Linus' tree): 7491
7884 files changed, 387032 insertions(+), 227558 deletions(-)
--
Hi all,
Please do not add any v4.20 material to your linux-next included
branches until after v4.19-rc1 has been released.
Changes since 20180821:
The akpm-current tree gained a conflict against the mips tree.
Non-merge commits (relative to Linus' tree): 2206
2327 files changed, 76092 insertio
Hello Peter,
On (08/30/17 10:47), Peter Zijlstra wrote:
[..]
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 10:42:07AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > So the overhead looks to be spread out over all sorts, which makes it
> > harder to find and fix.
> >
> > stack unwinding is done lots and is fairly expensive, I
m; ax...@kernel.dk; linux-
> s...@vger.kernel.org; s...@canb.auug.org.au; linux-n...@vger.kernel.org;
> kernel-t...@lge.com
> Subject: Re: possible circular locking dependency detected [was: linux-
> next: Tree for Aug 22]
>
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 10:42:07AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 10:42:07AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> So the overhead looks to be spread out over all sorts, which makes it
> harder to find and fix.
>
> stack unwinding is done lots and is fairly expensive, I've not yet
> checked if crossrelease does too much of that.
Aah, we do a
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 03:15:11PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On (08/30/17 14:43), Byungchul Park wrote:
> [..]
> > > notably slower than earlier 4.13 linux-next. (e.g. scrolling in vim
> > > is irritatingly slow)
> >
> > To Ingo,
> >
> > I cannot decide if we have to roll back C
Hi,
On (08/30/17 14:43), Byungchul Park wrote:
[..]
> > notably slower than earlier 4.13 linux-next. (e.g. scrolling in vim
> > is irritatingly slow)
>
> To Ingo,
>
> I cannot decide if we have to roll back CONFIG_LOCKDEP_CROSSRELEASE
> dependency on CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING in Kconfig. With them en
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 02:20:37PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> Byungchul, a quick question.
Hello Sergey,
> have you measured the performance impact? somehow my linux-next is
Yeah, it might have performance impact inevitably.
> notably slower than earlier 4.13 linux-next. (e.g. scrolling
On (08/23/17 09:03), Byungchul Park wrote:
[..]
> > Byungchul, did you add the crosslock checks to lockdep? Can you have a look
> > at
> > the above report? That report namely doesn't make sense to me.
>
> The report is talking about the following lockup:
>
> A work in a worker
Hi,
On (08/24/17 12:39), Boqun Feng wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 02:55:17PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > On (08/23/17 13:35), Boqun Feng wrote:
> > > > KERN_CONT and "\n" should not be together. "\n" flushes the cont
> > > > buffer immediately.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Hmm.. Not quite fam
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 02:55:17PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (08/23/17 13:35), Boqun Feng wrote:
> > > KERN_CONT and "\n" should not be together. "\n" flushes the cont
> > > buffer immediately.
> > >
> >
> > Hmm.. Not quite familiar with printk() stuffs, but I could see several
> > us
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 09:03:04AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 09:43:56PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> The report is talking about the following lockup:
>
> A work in a worker A task work on exit to user
> -- --
On (08/23/17 13:35), Boqun Feng wrote:
> > KERN_CONT and "\n" should not be together. "\n" flushes the cont
> > buffer immediately.
> >
>
> Hmm.. Not quite familiar with printk() stuffs, but I could see several
> usages of printk(KERN_CONT "...\n") in kernel.
>
> Did a bit research myself, and I
On (08/23/17 13:35), Boqun Feng wrote:
[..]
> > > printk(KERN_CONT ");\n");
> >
> > KERN_CONT and "\n" should not be together. "\n" flushes the cont
> > buffer immediately.
> >
>
> Hmm.. Not quite familiar with printk() stuffs, but I could see several
> usages of printk(KERN_CONT "...\
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 12:38:13PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> From: Boqun Feng
> Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 12:12:16 +0800
> Subject: [PATCH] lockdep: Print proper scenario if cross deadlock detected at
> acquisition time
>
> For a potential deadlock about CROSSRELEASE as follow:
>
> P1
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 01:46:48PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (08/23/17 12:38), Boqun Feng wrote:
> [..]
> > diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> > index 642fb5362507..a3709e15f609 100644
> > --- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> > +++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 01:46:17PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 11:49:51AM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > Hi Byungchul,
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 09:03:04AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 09:43:56PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > > > On
On (08/23/17 12:38), Boqun Feng wrote:
[..]
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> index 642fb5362507..a3709e15f609 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> @@ -1156,6 +1156,23 @@ print_circular_lock_scenario(struct held_lock *src,
>
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 11:49:51AM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> Hi Byungchul,
>
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 09:03:04AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 09:43:56PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2017-08-22 at 19:47 +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > > > ==
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 11:49:51AM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> Hi Byungchul,
>
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 09:03:04AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 09:43:56PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2017-08-22 at 19:47 +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > > > ==
Hi Byungchul,
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 09:03:04AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 09:43:56PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > On Tue, 2017-08-22 at 19:47 +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > > ==
> > > WARNING: possible cir
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 11:36:49AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (08/23/17 09:03), Byungchul Park wrote:
> [..]
>
> aha, ok
>
> > The report is talking about the following lockup:
> >
> > A work in a worker A task work on exit to user
> > --
On (08/23/17 09:03), Byungchul Park wrote:
[..]
aha, ok
> The report is talking about the following lockup:
>
> A work in a worker A task work on exit to user
> -- ---
> mutex_lock(&bdev->bd_mutex)
>
On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 09:43:56PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-08-22 at 19:47 +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > ==
> > WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
> > 4.13.0-rc6-next-20170822-dbg-00020-g39758ed8aae0-
Hi Paul,
On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 07:57:05 +1000 Stephen Rothwell
wrote:
>
> On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 12:36:20 -0700 "Paul E. McKenney"
> wrote:
> >
> > To complete the thought, if you aren't already using it, I suggest
> > applying Nick's patch:
> >
> > http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170822084348.21436-1-
Hi Paul,
On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 12:36:20 -0700 "Paul E. McKenney"
wrote:
>
> To complete the thought, if you aren't already using it, I suggest
> applying Nick's patch:
>
> http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170822084348.21436-1-npig...@gmail.com
OK, I applied that - with a little shoehorning due to comm
On Tue, 2017-08-22 at 19:47 +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> ==
> WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
> 4.13.0-rc6-next-20170822-dbg-00020-g39758ed8aae0-dirty #1746 Not tainted
> ---
On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 12:32:31PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 05:12:16AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi Paul,
> >
> > On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 11:59:23 -0700 "Paul E. McKenney"
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 04:14:24AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 05:12:16AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 11:59:23 -0700 "Paul E. McKenney"
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 04:14:24AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 04:11:17 +1000 Stephen Rothwell
Hi Paul,
On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 11:59:23 -0700 "Paul E. McKenney"
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 04:14:24AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 04:11:17 +1000 Stephen Rothwell
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > This tree fails to boot on my qemu test. 2 boot logs at
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 04:14:24AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 04:11:17 +1000 Stephen Rothwell
> wrote:
> >
> > This tree fails to boot on my qemu test. 2 boot logs attached.
> >
> > Paul, Nick, is this the same/similar to the other RCU/lockup bug you
> > a
Hi all,
On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 04:11:17 +1000 Stephen Rothwell
wrote:
>
> This tree fails to boot on my qemu test. 2 boot logs attached.
>
> Paul, Nick, is this the same/similar to the other RCU/lockup bug you
> are chasing. This is the first time I have seen this failure.
>
> This qemu boot is
Hi all,
This tree fails to boot on my qemu test. 2 boot logs attached.
Paul, Nick, is this the same/similar to the other RCU/lockup bug you
are chasing. This is the first time I have seen this failure.
This qemu boot is in full emulation mode if I add --enable-kvm to the
qemu command, it does
Hello,
==
WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
4.13.0-rc6-next-20170822-dbg-00020-g39758ed8aae0-dirty #1746 Not tainted
--
fsck.ext4/148 is trying to acquire lock:
(&bdev->bd_
Hi all,
Changes since 20170817:
The btrfs-kdave tree gained a conflict against the btrfs tree.
The v4l-dvb tree gained a conflict against the arm-soc tree.
The net-next tree still had its build failure for which I reverted
a commit. It also gained a conflict against the rockchip tree.
The l2-
On 08/21/16 22:21, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Changes since 20160819:
>
on x86_64:
ERROR: "__spi_register_driver" [sound/soc/codecs/snd-soc-rt5514-spi.ko]
undefined!
ERROR: "spi_sync" [sound/soc/codecs/snd-soc-rt5514-spi.ko] undefined!
Full randconfig file is attached.
Reported-by
Hi all,
Changes since 20160819:
The samsung-krzk tree gained a conflict against the imx-mxs tree.
The net-next tree gained a conflict against the net tree.
The kbuild tree still had its build warnings for PowerPC, for which I
reverted a commit.
Non-merge commits (relative to Linus' tree): 2676
Hi all,
Changes since 20140820:
The nfsd tree lost its build failure.
The sound-asoc tree lost its build failure.
The regulator tree lost its build failure.
The staging tree still had its build failure for which I applied a
fix patch.
Non-merge commits (relative to Linus' tree): 1372
1304 fi
Hi all,
There will be no linux-next trees on Aug 23 or 26.
Changes since 20130821:
The xfs tree lost its build failure.
The workqueues tree gained a conflict against the trivial tree.
The driver-core tree gained a build failure so I used the version from
next-20130821.
I added supplied semant
Hi all,
Changes since 20120821:
The rr tree gained a conflict against the mips tree.
The fsnotify tree gained a conflict against Linus' tree.
The tip tree lost its build failure.
The rcu tree gained conflicts against the tip tree.
The drivers-x86 tree still has its build failure so I used the
40 matches
Mail list logo
