Hi, Andi, Andi Kleen <a...@linux.intel.com> writes:
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 05:27:42PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 02:33:00PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote: >> > FYI, we noticed the below changes on >> > >> > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/peterz/queue.git perf/core >> > commit 7aba70e47ca4e961acb5af96d5127e3fad651c7c ("x86, perf: Optimize >> > stack walk user accesses") >> >> Of course, that commit no longer exists. I re-create the tree every time >> I push it, this means that if you report something a few days later, its >> highly likely its against non-existant commits :/ >> >> > [ 21.984049] BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request at 696d2f62 >> > [ 21.986759] IP: [<4110c023>] perf_prepare_sample+0xcc/0x51d >> > [ 21.987859] *pdpt = 0000000001a93001 *pde = 0000000000000000 >> > [ 21.988015] Oops: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT >> > [ 21.988015] Modules linked in: >> > [ 21.988015] CPU: 0 PID: 496 Comm: trinity-main Not tainted >> > 4.3.0-01147-g7aba70e #1 >> >> That doesn't actually look like something the fingered patch touches. >> And seeing how its trinity triggering it, I suspect bisection fail. > > Ok. I assume it's not caused by my patch. Let me know if that is wrong. Sorry about false positive. > I also pushed the patch before to my tree (which is 0day tested) and there > was no such report (but of course trinity is somewhat random). > > BTW if you're going to test trinity for perf it may be better to use > Vince Weaver's version here > > https://github.com/deater/perf_event_tests > > which has more coverage for perf than normal trinity. Thanks for your information. We will integrate it into 0day tests. Best Regards, Huang, Ying -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
