On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 7:12 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 5:28 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> On 01/30/2015 02:57 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
>>> On 01/28/2015 04:02 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 9:48 AM, Paul E. McKenney
wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 28,
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 5:28 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On 01/30/2015 02:57 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> On 01/28/2015 04:02 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 9:48 AM, Paul E. McKenney
>>> wrote:
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 08:33:06AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Fri, J
On 01/30/2015 02:57 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On 01/28/2015 04:02 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 9:48 AM, Paul E. McKenney
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 08:33:06AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 5:25 PM, Andy Lutomirski
wrote:
>
On 01/28/2015 04:02 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 9:48 AM, Paul E. McKenney
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 08:33:06AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 5:25 PM, Andy Lutomirski
>>> wrote:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Sasha Levin
>>>
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 9:48 AM, Paul E. McKenney
wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 08:33:06AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 5:25 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> > On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Sasha Levin
>> > wrote:
>> >> On 01/23/2015 01:34 PM, Andy Lutomirski wro
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 5:25 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> On 01/23/2015 01:34 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 09:58:01AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 08:33:06AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 5:25 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Sasha Levin
> > wrote:
> >> On 01/23/2015 01:34 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Borislav Petkov wro
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On 01/23/2015 01:34 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 09:58:01AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> [ 543.999079] Call Trace:
> [ 543.999079] dump_stack (
On 01/23/2015 01:34 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 09:58:01AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
[ 543.999079] Call Trace:
[ 543.999079] dump_stack (lib/dump_stack.c:52)
[ 543.999079] lockdep_rcu_suspici
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 09:58:01AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> > [ 543.999079] Call Trace:
>> > [ 543.999079] dump_stack (lib/dump_stack.c:52)
>> > [ 543.999079] lockdep_rcu_suspicious (kernel/locking/lockdep.c:4259)
>> > [ 543.99
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 09:58:01AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > [ 543.999079] Call Trace:
> > [ 543.999079] dump_stack (lib/dump_stack.c:52)
> > [ 543.999079] lockdep_rcu_suspicious (kernel/locking/lockdep.c:4259)
> > [ 543.999079] atomic_notifier_call_chain (include/linux/rcupdate.h:892
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On 11/21/2014 04:26 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> We currently pretend that IST context is like standard exception
>> context, but this is incorrect. IST entries from userspace are like
>> standard exceptions except that they use per-cpu stack
On 11/21/2014 04:26 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> We currently pretend that IST context is like standard exception
> context, but this is incorrect. IST entries from userspace are like
> standard exceptions except that they use per-cpu stacks, so they are
> atomic. IST entries from kernel space ar
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Tony Luck wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 4:24 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> I think you need ist_begin_non_atomic() before local_irq_enable() and
>> ist_end_non_atomic() after local_irq_disable(). Otherwise it should
>> be good.
>
> In your x86/paranoid branch y
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 4:24 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> I think you need ist_begin_non_atomic() before local_irq_enable() and
> ist_end_non_atomic() after local_irq_disable(). Otherwise it should
> be good.
In your x86/paranoid branch you added:
prev_state = ist_enter(regs);
..
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Tony Luck wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 03:52:10PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>> Dunno. Tony and Borislav -- when do you want the IST stack switching
>>> stuff?
>>
>> I'd leave that up to Tony and
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 03:52:10PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> Dunno. Tony and Borislav -- when do you want the IST stack switching
>> stuff?
>
> I'd leave that up to Tony and his testbench. I mean, we can hammer on
> it as much as we
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 03:03:22PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney
>
> Reviewed-by: Lai Jiangshan
Thank you, recorded!
> > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > index 8749f43f3f05..fc0236992655 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> > +++
>
> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney
>
Reviewed-by: Lai Jiangshan
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> index 8749f43f3f05..fc0236992655 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
> @@ -759,39 +759,71 @@ void rcu_irq_enter(void)
> /**
> * rcu_nmi_enter -
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 07:58:03PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 03:52:10PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > Dunno. Tony and Borislav -- when do you want the IST stack switching
> > stuff?
>
> I'd leave that up to Tony and his testbench. I mean, we can hammer on
> it as
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 03:52:10PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> Dunno. Tony and Borislav -- when do you want the IST stack switching
> stuff?
I'd leave that up to Tony and his testbench. I mean, we can hammer on
it as much as we can and it can pass all testing locally but the real
fun starts on
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 03:50:58PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 03:35:55PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> > wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 02:57:54PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > >> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Paul E. McKenney
wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 03:35:55PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Paul E. McKenney
>> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 02:57:54PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 02:36:18P
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 03:35:55PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 02:57:54PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 02:36:18PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 2
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Paul E. McKenney
wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 02:57:54PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 02:36:18PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> > On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Paul E. McKenney
>> > wrote:
>> > > On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 01:35:
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 02:57:54PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 02:36:18PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> > wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 01:35:01PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> [ . . . ]
>
> > > And
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 02:36:18PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 01:35:01PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
[ . . . ]
> > And the following Promela model claims that your approach works.
> > Should I trust it
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Paul E. McKenney
wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 01:35:01PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 01:02:51PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> > On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Paul E. McKenney
>> > wrote:
>> > > On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 12:22
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 01:35:01PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 01:02:51PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> > wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 12:22:13PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > >> On Sat, Nov 22, 2014
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 01:02:51PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 12:22:13PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 3:41 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 09:
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 12:54:41PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 12:22:13PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 3:41 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> > wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 09:53:29PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > >> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 a
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Paul E. McKenney
wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 12:22:13PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 3:41 PM, Paul E. McKenney
>> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 09:53:29PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> >> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 8:20 PM,
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 12:22:13PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 3:41 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 09:53:29PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 8:20 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 06:0
On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 3:41 PM, Paul E. McKenney
wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 09:53:29PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 8:20 PM, Paul E. McKenney
>> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 06:00:14PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> >> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 3:38 PM, P
On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 9:20 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 01:26:08PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> We currently pretend that IST context is like standard exception
>> context, but this is incorrect. IST entries from userspace are like
>> standard exceptions except that
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 09:53:29PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 8:20 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 06:00:14PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 03:0
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 01:26:08PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> We currently pretend that IST context is like standard exception
> context, but this is incorrect. IST entries from userspace are like
> standard exceptions except that they use per-cpu stacks, so they are
> atomic. IST entries fr
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 8:20 PM, Paul E. McKenney
wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 06:00:14PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Paul E. McKenney
>> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 03:06:48PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> >> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 2:55 PM, P
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 06:00:14PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 03:06:48PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 02:1
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Paul E. McKenney
wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 03:06:48PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Paul E. McKenney
>> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 02:19:17PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> >> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 2:07 PM, P
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 03:06:48PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 02:19:17PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 01:3
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 2:55 PM, Paul E. McKenney
wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 02:19:17PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Paul E. McKenney
>> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 01:32:50PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> >> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 1:26 PM, A
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 02:19:17PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 01:32:50PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Andy Lutomirski
> >> wrote:
> >> > We currently pretend that IS
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Paul E. McKenney
wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 01:32:50PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> > We currently pretend that IST context is like standard exception
>> > context, but this is incorrect. IST en
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 02:07:04PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 01:32:50PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Andy Lutomirski
> > wrote:
> > > We currently pretend that IST context is like standard exception
> > > context, but this is in
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 01:32:50PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > We currently pretend that IST context is like standard exception
> > context, but this is incorrect. IST entries from userspace are like
> > standard exceptions except th
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 01:26:08PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> We currently pretend that IST context is like standard exception
> context, but this is incorrect. IST entries from userspace are like
> standard exceptions except that they use per-cpu stacks, so they are
> atomic. IST entries fr
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> We currently pretend that IST context is like standard exception
> context, but this is incorrect. IST entries from userspace are like
> standard exceptions except that they use per-cpu stacks, so they are
> atomic. IST entries from kerne
We currently pretend that IST context is like standard exception
context, but this is incorrect. IST entries from userspace are like
standard exceptions except that they use per-cpu stacks, so they are
atomic. IST entries from kernel space are like NMIs from RCU's
perspective -- they are not quie
49 matches
Mail list logo