On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 03:17:25PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 11:29:39 -0700 > Tony Lindgren <[email protected]> wrote: > > > * Paul E. McKenney <[email protected]> [160426 10:53]: > > > Does the following patch help? > > > > It just changes the output.. See below. > > > > > It is quite possible that there are quite a few more of these. If this > > > is the case, then one way to make the kernel list more of them on a > > > given boot is to build with CONFIG_PROVE_RCU_REPEATEDLY=y. > > > > OK > > > > Regards, > > > > Tony > > > > 8< ------------------ > > CPU: Testing write buffer coherency: ok > > CPU0: thread -1, cpu 0, socket 0, mpidr 80000000 > > > > > > RCU used illegally from idle CPU! > > rcu_scheduler_active = 1, debug_locks = 0 > > RCU used illegally from extended quiescent state! > > no locks held by swapper/1/0. > > > > stack backtrace: > > CPU: 1 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/1 Not tainted 4.6.0-rc5-next-20160426+ #1113 > > Hardware name: Generic OMAP4 (Flattened Device Tree) > > [<c0110290>] (unwind_backtrace) from [<c010c3a8>] (show_stack+0x10/0x14) > > [<c010c3a8>] (show_stack) from [<c047ff88>] (dump_stack+0xb0/0xe4) > > [<c047ff88>] (dump_stack) from [<c012c014>] > > (pwrdm_set_next_pwrst+0x100/0x1d4) > > [<c012c014>] (pwrdm_set_next_pwrst) from [<c0126120>] > > (omap4_enter_lowpower+0xc8/0x230) > > [<c0126120>] (omap4_enter_lowpower) from [<c0126c24>] > > (omap_enter_idle_coupled+0x6c/0x254) > > [<c0126c24>] (omap_enter_idle_coupled) from [<c0601dfc>] > > (cpuidle_enter_state+0x80/0x3d4) > > [<c0601dfc>] (cpuidle_enter_state) from [<c0603d30>] > > (cpuidle_enter_state_coupled+0x348/0x390) > > [<c0603d30>] (cpuidle_enter_state_coupled) from [<c0183d34>] > > (cpu_startup_entry+0x198/0x3a0) > > [<c0183d34>] (cpu_startup_entry) from [<8010162c>] (0x8010162c) > > hw-breakpoint: Failed to enable monitor mode on CPU 0. > > Time to play "Whack-a-Mole"(TM)
Indeed! ;-) > Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <[email protected]> Given the similarity with the following: http://lkml.kernel.org/g/[email protected] May I apply your Reviewed-by? Thanx, Paul > --- > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/powerdomain.c > b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/powerdomain.c > index 78af6d8cf2e2..12b66b5bcc55 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/powerdomain.c > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/powerdomain.c > @@ -523,8 +523,8 @@ int pwrdm_set_next_pwrst(struct powerdomain *pwrdm, u8 > pwrst) > > if (arch_pwrdm && arch_pwrdm->pwrdm_set_next_pwrst) { > /* Trace the pwrdm desired target state */ > - trace_power_domain_target(pwrdm->name, pwrst, > - smp_processor_id()); > + trace_power_domain_target_rcuidle(pwrdm->name, pwrst, > + smp_processor_id()); > /* Program the pwrdm desired target state */ > ret = arch_pwrdm->pwrdm_set_next_pwrst(pwrdm, pwrst); > } >
