On Mon, 7 May 2012, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 09:21:54AM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> >
> > In 70 hours I got six isolated messages like the below (but from
> > different __might_sleep callsites) - where before I'd have flurries
> > of hundreds(?) and freeze within the hour
On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 09:21:54AM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Wed, 2 May 2012, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > On Wed, 2 May 2012, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > >
> > > In any case, I must confess that I feel quite silly about my series
> > > of patches. I have reverted them aside from a couple that d
On Wed, 2 May 2012, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Wed, 2 May 2012, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> > In any case, I must confess that I feel quite silly about my series
> > of patches. I have reverted them aside from a couple that did useful
> > optimizations, and they should show up in -next shortly.
>
On Wed, 2 May 2012, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 03:54:24PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 2:54 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> > wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 07:20:15AM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > >> On Wed, 2012-05-02 at 13:25 -0700, Hugh D
On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 03:54:24PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 2:54 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> wrote:
> > On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 07:20:15AM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2012-05-02 at 13:25 -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> >> > Got it at last. Embarrassingly o
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 2:54 PM, Paul E. McKenney
wrote:
> On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 07:20:15AM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>> On Wed, 2012-05-02 at 13:25 -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
>> > Got it at last. Embarrassingly obvious. __rcu_read_lock() and
>> > __rcu_read_unlock() are not safe to
On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 07:20:15AM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-05-02 at 13:25 -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > Got it at last. Embarrassingly obvious. __rcu_read_lock() and
> > __rcu_read_unlock() are not safe to be using __this_cpu operations,
> > the cpu may change in betw
On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 02:32:38PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 01:49:54PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 01:25:30PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > > On Tue, 1 May 2012, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Mon, 2012-04-30 at 15:37 -0700
On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 01:49:54PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 01:25:30PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > On Tue, 1 May 2012, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > > > On Mon, 2012-04-30 at 15:37 -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > BUG: sleeping funct
On Wed, 2012-05-02 at 13:25 -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> Got it at last. Embarrassingly obvious. __rcu_read_lock() and
> __rcu_read_unlock() are not safe to be using __this_cpu operations,
> the cpu may change in between the rmw's read and write: they should
> be using this_cpu operations (or, I
On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 01:25:30PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Tue, 1 May 2012, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, 2012-04-30 at 15:37 -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at
> > > > > > > include/linux/pagemap.h:35
On Tue, 1 May 2012, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, 2012-04-30 at 15:37 -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at
> > > > > > include/linux/pagemap.h:354
> > > > > > in_atomic(): 0, irqs_disabled(): 0, pid: 6886, name: cc1
>
On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 02:42:02PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Tue, 1 May 2012, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 10:10:06PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > > On Tue, 1 May 2012, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2012-04-30 at 15:37 -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > >
On Tue, 1 May 2012, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 10:10:06PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > On Tue, 1 May 2012, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2012-04-30 at 15:37 -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > > >
> > > > BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at
> >
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 10:10:06PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Tue, 1 May 2012, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > On Mon, 2012-04-30 at 15:37 -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > >
> > > BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at
> > > include/linux/pagemap.h:354
> > > in_atomic(): 0, ir
On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 10:33:38AM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-04-30 at 15:37 -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> >
> > BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at
> > include/linux/pagemap.h:354
> > in_atomic(): 0, irqs_disabled(): 0, pid: 6886, name: cc1
>
> Hrm ...
On Tue, 1 May 2012, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-04-30 at 15:37 -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> >
> > BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at
> > include/linux/pagemap.h:354
> > in_atomic(): 0, irqs_disabled(): 0, pid: 6886, name: cc1
>
> Hrm ... in_atomic and irqs_dis
On Mon, 2012-04-30 at 15:37 -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
>
> BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at
> include/linux/pagemap.h:354
> in_atomic(): 0, irqs_disabled(): 0, pid: 6886, name: cc1
Hrm ... in_atomic and irqs_disabled are both 0 ... so yeah it smells
like a preempt count prob
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 03:37:10PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> On 3.4.0-rc4-next-20120427 and preceding linux-nexts (I've not tried
> rc5-next-20120430 but expect it's the same), on PowerPC G5 quad with
> CONFIG_PREEMPT=y and CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP=y, I'm getting spurious
> "BUG:
19 matches
Mail list logo