On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 11:14:38AM +0200, Stefan Bader wrote:
> On 08.04.2014 14:21, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 08:56:58PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >> On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 08:16:24PM +0200, Toralf Förster wrote:
> >>
> >>> v3.14-10353-g2b3a8fd works fine AFAICS
> >>>
On 08.04.2014 14:21, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 08:56:58PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 08:16:24PM +0200, Toralf Förster wrote:
>>
>>> v3.14-10353-g2b3a8fd works fine AFAICS
>>> (BTW the fix is stable material, right ?)
>>
>> I'm fairly sure its not;
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 04/08/2014 02:21 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 08:56:58PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 08:16:24PM +0200, Toralf Förster wrote:
>>
>>> v3.14-10353-g2b3a8fd works fine AFAICS (BTW the fix is stable
>
On 08/04/2014 21:14, Michele Ballabio wrote:
> On 08/04/2014 14:21, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 08:56:58PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 08:16:24PM +0200, Toralf Förster wrote:
>>>
v3.14-10353-g2b3a8fd works fine AFAICS
(BTW the fix is stabl
On 08/04/2014 14:21, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 08:56:58PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 08:16:24PM +0200, Toralf Förster wrote:
>>
>>> v3.14-10353-g2b3a8fd works fine AFAICS
>>> (BTW the fix is stable material, right ?)
>>
>> I'm fairly sure its not;
On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 08:56:58PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 08:16:24PM +0200, Toralf Förster wrote:
>
> > v3.14-10353-g2b3a8fd works fine AFAICS
> > (BTW the fix is stable material, right ?)
>
> I'm fairly sure its not; its a rather invasive series; see:
>
> 2432e13
On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 09:57:00PM +0200, Toralf Förster wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 04/07/2014 08:59 PM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 08:16:24PM +0200, Toralf Förster wrote:
> >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256
> >>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 04/07/2014 08:59 PM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 08:16:24PM +0200, Toralf Förster wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256
>>
>> On 04/07/2014 05:07 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 0
On 07/04/2014 17:07, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 05:03:37PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> So what I suspect at this point is that because i386 and x86_64 have a
>> difference in current_thread_info() (i386 is stack based), we end up
>> setting the TIF_NEED_RESCHED bit on the w
On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 08:16:24PM +0200, Toralf Förster wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 04/07/2014 05:07 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 05:03:37PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >> So what I suspect at this point is that because i386 and x8
On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 08:16:24PM +0200, Toralf Förster wrote:
> v3.14-10353-g2b3a8fd works fine AFAICS
> (BTW the fix is stable material, right ?)
I'm fairly sure its not; its a rather invasive series; see:
2432e1364bbe x86: Nuke the supervisor_stack field in i386 thread_info
b807902a88c4 x86:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 04/07/2014 05:07 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 05:03:37PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> So what I suspect at this point is that because i386 and x86_64
>> have a difference in current_thread_info() (i386 is stack based),
>>
On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 05:03:37PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> So what I suspect at this point is that because i386 and x86_64 have a
> difference in current_thread_info() (i386 is stack based), we end up
> setting the TIF_NEED_RESCHED bit on the wrong stack.
>
> Now I have some vague memories
On Sun, Apr 06, 2014 at 05:19:27PM +0200, Michele Ballabio wrote:
> Toralf Förster reported this in
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1662567
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1658422
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1657962
>
> "The issue happens here
On 06/04/2014 17:52, Toralf Förster wrote:
>> > Reverting either one of them solves the problem reported with kvm,
>> > but revert is probably not the correct answer.
>> >
>> > I wonder if the solution is as simple as this:
>> >
>> > --->8---
>> > diff --git a/arch/x86/Kconfig b/arch/x86/Kconfig
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 04/06/2014 05:19 PM, Michele Ballabio wrote:
> Toralf Förster reported this in
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1662567
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1658422
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1657962
Toralf Förster reported this in
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1662567
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1658422
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1657962
"The issue happens here at a 32 bit stable Gentoo Linux if
I try to start a KVM image. Kernels 3.12
17 matches
Mail list logo