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
48 matches
Mail list logo