./drmgr -c cpu -a -r gives the following warning:
[ 2327.035563]
RCU used illegally from offline CPU!
rcu_scheduler_active = 1, debug_locks = 1
[ 2327.035564] no locks held by swapper/12/0.
[ 2327.035565]
stack backtrace:
[ 2327.035567] CPU: 12 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/12 Tainted: G S
4.3.0-rc3-0006
On Tue, 2015-11-24 at 21:23 +0300, Denis Kirjanov wrote:
> ./drmgr -c cpu -a -r gives the following warning:
>
> [ 2327.035563] RCU used illegally from offline CPU!
> rcu_scheduler_active = 1, debug_locks = 1
> [ 2327.035564] no locks held by swapper/12/0.
> [ 2327.035565] stack backtrace:
> [ 23
On 11/26/15, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-11-24 at 21:23 +0300, Denis Kirjanov wrote:
>
>> ./drmgr -c cpu -a -r gives the following warning:
>>
>> [ 2327.035563] RCU used illegally from offline CPU!
>> rcu_scheduler_active = 1, debug_locks = 1
>> [ 2327.035564] no locks held by swapper/1
On Thu, 2015-11-26 at 11:15 +0300, Denis Kirjanov wrote:
> On 11/26/15, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > On Tue, 2015-11-24 at 21:23 +0300, Denis Kirjanov wrote:
> > I can't get this to hit.
> >
> > I've got LOCKDEP=y, I've enabled the hcall tracepoints, and then I offline
> > a cpu via sysfs.
> I ha
On 11/26/15, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-11-26 at 11:15 +0300, Denis Kirjanov wrote:
>> On 11/26/15, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>> > On Tue, 2015-11-24 at 21:23 +0300, Denis Kirjanov wrote:
>> > I can't get this to hit.
>> >
>> > I've got LOCKDEP=y, I've enabled the hcall tracepoints, and
I can take this series through my tree, but I need a acked-by from a
PPC maintainer for this patch.
-- Steve
On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 21:23:39 +0300
Denis Kirjanov wrote:
> ./drmgr -c cpu -a -r gives the following warning:
>
> [ 2327.035563]
> RCU used illegally from offline CPU!
> rcu_scheduler_
On Mon, 2015-12-07 at 15:52 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > + TP_CONDITION(cpu_online(smp_processor_id())),
> > +
This should probably be some kind of __raw version though, hcalls can
be called in contexts where the debug stuff in smp_processor_id() isn't
safe (or preempt enabled).
Cheers,
B
On Tue, 08 Dec 2015 08:02:15 +1100
Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-12-07 at 15:52 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > + TP_CONDITION(cpu_online(smp_processor_id())),
> > > +
>
> This should probably be some kind of __raw version though, hcalls can
> be called in contexts where
On Mon, 2015-12-07 at 16:33 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Dec 2015 08:02:15 +1100
> Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > On Mon, 2015-12-07 at 15:52 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > > + TP_CONDITION(cpu_online(smp_processor_id())),
> > > > +
> >
> > This should probably be some k
On 12/14/15, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-12-07 at 16:33 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> On Tue, 08 Dec 2015 08:02:15 +1100
>> Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>> > On Mon, 2015-12-07 at 15:52 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> > > > + TP_CONDITION(cpu_online(smp_processor_id())),
>> > >
10 matches
Mail list logo