On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 11:24:13PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Aug 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Thu, 31 Aug 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 09:55:57AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > > Arghh!!!
> > > > >
> > > > > And allowing us to create
On Thu, 31 Aug 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Aug 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 09:55:57AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > Arghh!!!
> > > >
> > > > And allowing us to create events for offline CPUs (possible I think, but
> > > > maybe slightly tricky)
On Thu, 31 Aug 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 09:55:57AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > Arghh!!!
> > >
> > > And allowing us to create events for offline CPUs (possible I think, but
> > > maybe slightly tricky) won't solve that, because we're already holding
> > > the
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 09:55:57AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > Arghh!!!
> >
> > And allowing us to create events for offline CPUs (possible I think, but
> > maybe slightly tricky) won't solve that, because we're already holding
> > the hotplug_lock during PREPARE.
>
> There are two ways to
On Thu, 31 Aug 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 09:08:05AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Wed, 30 Aug 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On offline it basically does perf_event_disable() for all CPU context
> > > events, and then adds HOTPLUG_OFFSET (-32) to arrive at: OFF
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 09:08:05AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On offline it basically does perf_event_disable() for all CPU context
> > events, and then adds HOTPLUG_OFFSET (-32) to arrive at: OFF +
> > HOTPLUG_OFFSET = -33.
> >
> > That's smalle
On Wed, 30 Aug 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On offline it basically does perf_event_disable() for all CPU context
> events, and then adds HOTPLUG_OFFSET (-32) to arrive at: OFF +
> HOTPLUG_OFFSET = -33.
>
> That's smaller than ERROR and thus perf_event_enable() no-ops on events
> for offline CPUs
On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 10:10:37PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Aug 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > So I have a patch _somewhere_ that preserves the event<->cpu relation
> > across hotplug and disable/enable would be sufficient. If you want I can
> > try and dig that out and make it w
On Tue, 29 Aug 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 07:40:44PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> > One solution I'm looking into right now is to reverse the lock order and
> > actually make the hotplug code do:
> >
> > watchdog_lock();
> > cpu_write_lock();
> >
> >
On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 07:40:44PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> One solution I'm looking into right now is to reverse the lock order and
> actually make the hotplug code do:
>
>watchdog_lock();
>cpu_write_lock();
>
>
>cpu_write_unlock();
>watchdog_u
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 04:47:55PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2017-08-25 12:03:04 [+0200], Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > ==
> > WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
> > 4.13.0-rc6+ #1 Not tainted
> > --
On Mon, 28 Aug 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> What's worse, there's also:
>
> cpus_write_lock()
> ...
> takedown_cpu()
> smpboot_park_threads()
> smpboot_park_thread()
> kthread_park()
> ->park() := watchdog_disable()
> watchdog_nmi_di
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 05:06:17PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 04:58:08PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 12:03:04PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > > Hey,
> > >
> > > tglx says I have something for ya :-)
> > >
> > > =
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 04:58:08PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 12:03:04PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > Hey,
> >
> > tglx says I have something for ya :-)
> >
> > ==
> > WARNING: possible circular locking dependenc
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 12:03:04PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> Hey,
>
> tglx says I have something for ya :-)
>
> ==
> WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
> 4.13.0-rc6+ #1 Not tainted
>
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 04:47:55PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2017-08-25 12:03:04 [+0200], Borislav Petkov wrote:
> | ==
> | WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
> | 4.13.0-rc6-00758-gd80d4177391f-dirty #112 Not
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 04:47:55PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2017-08-25 12:03:04 [+0200], Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > ==
> > WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
> > 4.13.0-rc6+ #1 Not tainted
> > --
On 2017-08-25 12:03:04 [+0200], Borislav Petkov wrote:
> Hey,
Hi Borislav,
> tglx says I have something for ya :-)
:)
> ==
> WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
> 4.13.0-rc6+ #1 Not tainted
> ---
On Sat, 26 Aug 2017, Byungchul Park wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 11:47 PM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
> wrote:
> > We hold the sparse_irq_lock lock while waiting for the completion in the
> > CPU-down case and in the CPU-up case we acquire the sparse_irq_lock lock
> > while the other CPU is wai
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 11:47 PM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
wrote:
> On 2017-08-25 12:03:04 [+0200], Borislav Petkov wrote:
>> ==
>> WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
>> 4.13.0-rc6+ #1 Not tainted
>> -
On 2017-08-25 12:03:04 [+0200], Borislav Petkov wrote:
> ==
> WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
> 4.13.0-rc6+ #1 Not tainted
> --
While looking at this, I stumbled upon anot
.config
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.
#
# Automatically generated file; DO NOT EDIT.
# Linux/x86 4.13.0-rc6 Kernel Configuration
#
CONFIG_64BIT=y
CONFIG_X86_64=y
CONFIG_X86=y
CONFIG_INSTRUCTION_DECODER=y
CONFIG_OUTPUT_FORMAT="e
22 matches
Mail list logo
