On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 12:37:14PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> I am planning to take out the check in check_deadlock and only have the test
> in lock_acquire which change a 3 to 2 when in interrupt context. Now my
> question is whether to do it as a new patch on top of the existing one in
> tip or
On 07/25/2014 12:10 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 04:38:28PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
Yes, I think I may have a solution for that.
Borislav, can you apply the following patch on top of the lockdep patch to
see if it can fix the problem?
diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.
On 07/24/2014 05:45 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 04:38:28PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
Borislav, can you apply the following patch on top of the lockdep
patch to see if it can fix the problem?
It is too late here for me to test anything but the ingridients to
reproduce are
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 04:38:28PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> Yes, I think I may have a solution for that.
>
> Borislav, can you apply the following patch on top of the lockdep patch to
> see if it can fix the problem?
>
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> index
> "Waiman" == Waiman Long writes:
Waiman> On 07/24/2014 02:36 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 11:18:16AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 5:58 AM, Peter Zijlstra
>>> wrote:
So going by the nifty picture rostedt made:
[ 61.454336
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 04:38:28PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> Borislav, can you apply the following patch on top of the lockdep
> patch to see if it can fix the problem?
It is too late here for me to test anything but the ingridients to
reproduce are nothing special. Just grab a kvm guest and pic
On 07/24/2014 02:36 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 11:18:16AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 5:58 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
So going by the nifty picture rostedt made:
[ 61.454336]CPU0CPU1
[ 61.454336]
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 11:18:16AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 5:58 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > So going by the nifty picture rostedt made:
> >
> > [ 61.454336]CPU0CPU1
> > [ 61.454336]
> > [ 61.
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 5:58 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> So going by the nifty picture rostedt made:
>
> [ 61.454336]CPU0CPU1
> [ 61.454336]
> [ 61.454336] lock(&(&p->alloc_lock)->rlock);
> [ 61.454336]
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 02:58:14PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Of course we should have made the lockdep change before merging qrwlock,
> and that's entirely my fail, but with qrwlock in these new semantics are
> already a reality.
>
> We could of course disable qrwlock until all such issues ar
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 02:25:13PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 10:41:27AM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > you can easily reproduce by booting a kvm guest with rc6 + tip/master.
>
> Right, so reverting
>
> 586fefe5bbdc ("locking/selftest: Support queued rwlock")
> e06
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 10:41:27AM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> you can easily reproduce by booting a kvm guest with rc6 + tip/master.
Right, so reverting
586fefe5bbdc ("locking/selftest: Support queued rwlock")
e0645a111cb4 ("locking/lockdep: Restrict the use of recursive read_lock() with
qr
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 08:43:53AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 05:37:43PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 2:53 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > >
> > > Well, it looks like we f*cked up something after -rc5 since I'm starting
> > > to see lockdep sp
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 05:37:43PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 2:53 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> >
> > Well, it looks like we f*cked up something after -rc5 since I'm starting
> > to see lockdep splats all over the place which I didn't see before. I'm
> > running rc6 + t
On Wed, 23 Jul 2014, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > Well, it looks like we f*cked up something after -rc5 since I'm starting
> > to see lockdep splats all over the place which I didn't see before. I'm
> > running rc6 + tip/master.
> >
> > There was one in r8169 yesterday:
> >
> > https://lkml.kernel.or
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 2:53 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>
> Well, it looks like we f*cked up something after -rc5 since I'm starting
> to see lockdep splats all over the place which I didn't see before. I'm
> running rc6 + tip/master.
>
> There was one in r8169 yesterday:
>
> https://lkml.kernel.o
On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 09:22:52PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> So go get the latest rc and kick the tires, to see that nothing has
> fallen through the cracks, ok?
Well, it looks like we f*cked up something after -rc5 since I'm starting
to see lockdep splats all over the place which I didn't se
17 matches
Mail list logo
