On Thu, 30 Aug 2018 17:09:52 -0700
"Paul E. McKenney" wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 07:53:22PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Thu, 30 Aug 2018 16:12:11 -0700
> > "Paul E. McKenney" wrote:
> >
> >
> > > > > - WARN_ON_ONCE(rcu_scheduler_active == RCU_SCHEDULER_INIT);
> > > >
>
On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 07:53:22PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2018 16:12:11 -0700
> "Paul E. McKenney" wrote:
>
>
> > > > - WARN_ON_ONCE(rcu_scheduler_active == RCU_SCHEDULER_INIT);
> > >
> > > Well it boots without warning ;-)
> > >
> > > Tested-by: Steven Rostedt (
On Thu, 30 Aug 2018 16:12:11 -0700
"Paul E. McKenney" wrote:
> > > - WARN_ON_ONCE(rcu_scheduler_active == RCU_SCHEDULER_INIT);
> >
> > Well it boots without warning ;-)
> >
> > Tested-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware)
>
> Thank you again! I applied this to 1/3 and 3/3 on the assumption that
On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 02:36:17PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2018 10:37:42 -0700
> "Paul E. McKenney" wrote:
>
>
> > > > But still triggered the following:
> > > >
> > > > WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 0 at
> > > > /work/git/linux-trace.git/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c:242
> > > > check_
On Thu, 30 Aug 2018 10:37:42 -0700
"Paul E. McKenney" wrote:
> > > But still triggered the following:
> > >
> > > WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 0 at
> > > /work/git/linux-trace.git/kernel/rcu/srcutree.c:242
> > > check_init_srcu_struct+0x85/0x90
> >
> > Gah!!! I needed to have removed that WARN_O
On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 10:35:09AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 12:44:44PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Wed, 29 Aug 2018 20:23:15 -0700
> > "Paul E. McKenney" wrote:
> >
> > > > > Glad you like it! Does it actually work for you? ;-)
> > > >
> > > > Oh, you
On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 12:44:44PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Aug 2018 20:23:15 -0700
> "Paul E. McKenney" wrote:
>
> > > > Glad you like it! Does it actually work for you? ;-)
> > >
> > > Oh, you want me to actually test it too? ;-)
> >
> > ;-) ;-) ;-)
> >
> > > I'll try
On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 10:46:09PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Aug 2018 19:07:01 -0700
> "Paul E. McKenney" wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 09:56:16PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > On Wed, 29 Aug 2018 14:23:13 -0700
> > > "Paul E. McKenney" wrote:
> > >
> > > > Allocat
On Wed, 29 Aug 2018 19:07:01 -0700
"Paul E. McKenney" wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 09:56:16PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Wed, 29 Aug 2018 14:23:13 -0700
> > "Paul E. McKenney" wrote:
> >
> > > Allocating a list_head structure that is almost never used, and, when
> > > used, is us
On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 09:56:16PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Aug 2018 14:23:13 -0700
> "Paul E. McKenney" wrote:
>
> > Allocating a list_head structure that is almost never used, and, when
> > used, is used only during early boot (rcu_init() and earlier), is a bit
> > wasteful. T
On Wed, 29 Aug 2018 14:23:13 -0700
"Paul E. McKenney" wrote:
> Allocating a list_head structure that is almost never used, and, when
> used, is used only during early boot (rcu_init() and earlier), is a bit
> wasteful. This commit therefore eliminates that list_head in favor of
> the one in the
Allocating a list_head structure that is almost never used, and, when
used, is used only during early boot (rcu_init() and earlier), is a bit
wasteful. This commit therefore eliminates that list_head in favor of
the one in the work_struct structure. This is safe because the work_struct
structure
12 matches
Mail list logo
