On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 8:03 AM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 07:57:54PM +0530, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
> > I have reported this warning on linux-next and now it is happening on
> > linux mainline tree.
> > May I know , are we missing a fix patch on linus 's tree ?
> >
> > -
On Thu, 2 Jul 2020 at 20:33, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> How's this?
>
> DEFINE_IDTENTRY_DEBUG() is DEFINE_IDTENTRY_RAW on x86_64
>DEFINE_IDTENTRY on i386
>
> calling exc_debug_*() from DEFINE_IDTENTRY() does a double layer of
> idtentry_{enter,exit}*() functions.
>
>
On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 07:57:54PM +0530, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
> I have reported this warning on linux-next and now it is happening on
> linux mainline tree.
> May I know , are we missing a fix patch on linus 's tree ?
>
> - Naresh
> ---
> While running selftest x86 single_step_syscall_32 on
>
I have reported this warning on linux-next and now it is happening on
linux mainline tree.
May I know , are we missing a fix patch on linus 's tree ?
- Naresh
---
While running selftest x86 single_step_syscall_32 on
i386 kernel linux 5.8.0-rc3 kernel warning noticed.
steps to reproduce:
Andy Lutomirski writes:
>> On Jun 12, 2020, at 2:01 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> There is no IST on 32bit, never was. We do software stack switching for
>> device interrupts, but that's a different story.
>>
>
> DEFINE_IDTENTRY does the idtentry_enter_cond_rcu() dance, which isn’t
> intended
> On Jun 12, 2020, at 2:01 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> Andy Lutomirski writes:
>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 4:22 PM Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>
>> Two bugs here.
>>
>> 1. We had an issue with WARN. Patch sent.
>
> Grabbed it
>
>> 2. idtentry.h has, for x86_32:
>>
>> # define
Andy Lutomirski writes:
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 4:22 PM Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> Two bugs here.
>
> 1. We had an issue with WARN. Patch sent.
Grabbed it
> 2. idtentry.h has, for x86_32:
>
> # define DEFINE_IDTENTRY_IST DEFINE_IDTENTRY
>
> This is nonsense. It's getting late over here and
On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 4:22 PM Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 12:25 PM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 12:10:50PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 11:56 AM Naresh Kamboju
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > While running perf test
On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 12:25 PM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 12:10:50PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 11:56 AM Naresh Kamboju
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > While running perf test and selftest x86 single_step_syscall_32 on
> > > i386 kernel linux
> > >
On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 12:10:50PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 11:56 AM Naresh Kamboju
> wrote:
> >
> > While running perf test and selftest x86 single_step_syscall_32 on
> > i386 kernel linux
> > next 5.7.0-next-20200610 kernel warning noticed.
> >
> > steps to
On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 11:56 AM Naresh Kamboju
wrote:
>
> While running perf test and selftest x86 single_step_syscall_32 on
> i386 kernel linux
> next 5.7.0-next-20200610 kernel warning noticed.
>
> steps to reproduce:
> --
> perf test
> and
> cd
While running perf test and selftest x86 single_step_syscall_32 on
i386 kernel linux
next 5.7.0-next-20200610 kernel warning noticed.
steps to reproduce:
--
perf test
and
cd /opt/kselftests/default-in-kernel/x86
./single_step_syscall_32
perf warning log:
12 matches
Mail list logo