Re: [PATCH] rcu: Narrow early boot window of illegal synchronous grace periods

On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 01:57:25AM +, Zheng, Lv wrote: > Hi, > > > From: Borislav Petkov [mailto:b...@alien8.de] > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcu: Narrow early boot window of illegal synchronous > > grace periods > > > > On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 01:27

Re: [PATCH] rcu: Narrow early boot window of illegal synchronous grace periods

On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 01:57:25AM +, Zheng, Lv wrote: > Hi, > > > From: Borislav Petkov [mailto:b...@alien8.de] > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcu: Narrow early boot window of illegal synchronous > > grace periods > > > > On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 01:27

RE: [PATCH] rcu: Narrow early boot window of illegal synchronous grace periods

Hi, > From: Borislav Petkov [mailto:b...@alien8.de] > Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcu: Narrow early boot window of illegal synchronous > grace periods > > On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 01:27:40PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > OK, so this fixes the problem with sync

RE: [PATCH] rcu: Narrow early boot window of illegal synchronous grace periods

Hi, > From: Borislav Petkov [mailto:b...@alien8.de] > Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcu: Narrow early boot window of illegal synchronous > grace periods > > On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 01:27:40PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > OK, so this fixes the problem with sync

Re: [PATCH] rcu: Narrow early boot window of illegal synchronous grace periods

On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 11:09:31AM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 09:24:43PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > Which means, you probably should tag your fix CC:stable and add > > > > > > Fixes: 8b355e3bc140 ("rcu: Drive expedited grace periods from workqueue") > > > >

Re: [PATCH] rcu: Narrow early boot window of illegal synchronous grace periods

On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 11:09:31AM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 09:24:43PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > Which means, you probably should tag your fix CC:stable and add > > > > > > Fixes: 8b355e3bc140 ("rcu: Drive expedited grace periods from workqueue") > > > >

Re: [PATCH] rcu: Narrow early boot window of illegal synchronous grace periods

On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 09:24:43PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > Which means, you probably should tag your fix CC:stable and add > > > > Fixes: 8b355e3bc140 ("rcu: Drive expedited grace periods from workqueue") > > > > to it too. > > Like this? Very nice, ship it! :-) Thanks. --

Re: [PATCH] rcu: Narrow early boot window of illegal synchronous grace periods

On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 09:24:43PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > Which means, you probably should tag your fix CC:stable and add > > > > Fixes: 8b355e3bc140 ("rcu: Drive expedited grace periods from workqueue") > > > > to it too. > > Like this? Very nice, ship it! :-) Thanks. --

Re: [PATCH] rcu: Narrow early boot window of illegal synchronous grace periods

On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 11:35:25AM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 12:00:22AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > It now looks like this: > > > > > > > > Note that the code was buggy even before this

Re: [PATCH] rcu: Narrow early boot window of illegal synchronous grace periods

On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 11:35:25AM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 12:00:22AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > It now looks like this: > > > > > > > > Note that the code was buggy even before this

Re: [PATCH] rcu: Narrow early boot window of illegal synchronous grace periods

On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 01:27:40PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > OK, so this fixes the problem with synchronize_rcu_expedited() in > acpi_os_map_cleanup(), right? Yeah. > I wonder if the ACPI-specific fix is still needed, then? It is not strictly necessary. If you still think it would be

Re: [PATCH] rcu: Narrow early boot window of illegal synchronous grace periods

On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 01:27:40PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > OK, so this fixes the problem with synchronize_rcu_expedited() in > acpi_os_map_cleanup(), right? Yeah. > I wonder if the ACPI-specific fix is still needed, then? It is not strictly necessary. If you still think it would be

Re: [PATCH] rcu: Narrow early boot window of illegal synchronous grace periods

On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 11:35 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 12:00:22AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: >> It now looks like this: >> >> >> >> Note that the code was buggy even before

Re: [PATCH] rcu: Narrow early boot window of illegal synchronous grace periods

On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 11:35 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 12:00:22AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: >> It now looks like this: >> >> >> >> Note that the code was buggy even before this commit, as it

Re: [PATCH] rcu: Narrow early boot window of illegal synchronous grace periods

On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 12:00:22AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > It now looks like this: > > > > Note that the code was buggy even before this commit, as it was subject > to failure on real-time systems that forced all

Re: [PATCH] rcu: Narrow early boot window of illegal synchronous grace periods

On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 12:00:22AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > It now looks like this: > > > > Note that the code was buggy even before this commit, as it was subject > to failure on real-time systems that forced all

Re: [PATCH] rcu: Narrow early boot window of illegal synchronous grace periods

On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 12:25:19PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 06:38:07PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > The current preemptible RCU implementation goes through three phases > > during bootup. In the first phase, there is only one CPU that is running > > with

Re: [PATCH] rcu: Narrow early boot window of illegal synchronous grace periods

On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 12:25:19PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 06:38:07PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > The current preemptible RCU implementation goes through three phases > > during bootup. In the first phase, there is only one CPU that is running > > with

Re: [PATCH] rcu: Narrow early boot window of illegal synchronous grace periods

On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 06:38:07PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > The current preemptible RCU implementation goes through three phases > during bootup. In the first phase, there is only one CPU that is running > with preemption disabled, so that a no-op is a synchronous grace period. > In the

Re: [PATCH] rcu: Narrow early boot window of illegal synchronous grace periods

On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 06:38:07PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > The current preemptible RCU implementation goes through three phases > during bootup. In the first phase, there is only one CPU that is running > with preemption disabled, so that a no-op is a synchronous grace period. > In the

Re: [PATCH] rcu: Narrow early boot window of illegal synchronous grace periods

On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 06:38:07PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > The current preemptible RCU implementation goes through three phases > during bootup. In the first phase, there is only one CPU that is running > with preemption disabled, so that a no-op is a synchronous grace period. > In the

Re: [PATCH] rcu: Narrow early boot window of illegal synchronous grace periods

On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 06:38:07PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > The current preemptible RCU implementation goes through three phases > during bootup. In the first phase, there is only one CPU that is running > with preemption disabled, so that a no-op is a synchronous grace period. > In the