On 09/06/2018 01:48 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Thu, 6 Sep 2018, Neeraj Upadhyay wrote:
On 09/05/2018 06:47 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Wed, 5 Sep 2018, Neeraj Upadhyay wrote:
On 09/05/2018 05:53 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
And looking closer this is a general issue. Just that the TEARD
On Thu, 6 Sep 2018, Neeraj Upadhyay wrote:
> On 09/05/2018 06:47 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Wed, 5 Sep 2018, Neeraj Upadhyay wrote:
> > > On 09/05/2018 05:53 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > And looking closer this is a general issue. Just that the TEARDOWN state
> > > > makes it simple to
On 09/05/2018 06:47 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Wed, 5 Sep 2018, Neeraj Upadhyay wrote:
On 09/05/2018 05:53 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
And looking closer this is a general issue. Just that the TEARDOWN state
makes it simple to observe. It's universaly broken, when the first teardown
callba
On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 02:23:46PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Sep 2018, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Tue, 4 Sep 2018, Neeraj Upadhyay wrote:
> > > ret = cpuhp_down_callbacks(cpu, st, target);
> > > if (ret && st->state > CPUHP_TEARDOWN_CPU && st->state < prev_state) {
> > > -
On Wed, 5 Sep 2018, Neeraj Upadhyay wrote:
> On 09/05/2018 05:53 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >
> > And looking closer this is a general issue. Just that the TEARDOWN state
> > makes it simple to observe. It's universaly broken, when the first teardown
> > callback fails because, st->state is only
On Wed, 5 Sep 2018, Mukesh Ojha wrote:
> On 9/5/2018 5:03 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > + st->rollback = true;
> > > + st->target = prev_state;
> > > + st->bringup = !st->bringup;
> > No, this is just papering over the actual problem.
> >
> > The state inconsistency happ
On 09/05/2018 05:53 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Wed, 5 Sep 2018, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Tue, 4 Sep 2018, Neeraj Upadhyay wrote:
ret = cpuhp_down_callbacks(cpu, st, target);
if (ret && st->state > CPUHP_TEARDOWN_CPU && st->state < prev_state) {
- cpuhp_reset
On Wed, 5 Sep 2018, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Sep 2018, Neeraj Upadhyay wrote:
> > ret = cpuhp_down_callbacks(cpu, st, target);
> > if (ret && st->state > CPUHP_TEARDOWN_CPU && st->state < prev_state) {
> > - cpuhp_reset_state(st, prev_state);
> > + /*
> > +
On 9/5/2018 5:03 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Tue, 4 Sep 2018, Neeraj Upadhyay wrote:
If takedown_cpu() fails during _cpu_down(), st->state is reset,
by calling cpuhp_reset_state(). This results in an additional
increment of st->state, which results in CPUHP_AP_SMPBOOT_THREADS
state being sk
On Tue, 4 Sep 2018, Neeraj Upadhyay wrote:
> If takedown_cpu() fails during _cpu_down(), st->state is reset,
> by calling cpuhp_reset_state(). This results in an additional
> increment of st->state, which results in CPUHP_AP_SMPBOOT_THREADS
> state being skipped during rollback. Fix this by not cal
On 9/4/2018 12:03 PM, Neeraj Upadhyay wrote:
If takedown_cpu() fails during _cpu_down(), st->state is reset,
by calling cpuhp_reset_state(). This results in an additional
increment of st->state, which results in CPUHP_AP_SMPBOOT_THREADS
state being skipped during rollback. Fix this by not call
11 matches
Mail list logo
