On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 11:59:18AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 9:49 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 09:29:07PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 06:53:15PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> > For reasons that mystify
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 06:53:15PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> For reasons that mystify me a bit, we currently track context tracking
> state separately from rcu's watching state. This results in strange
> artifacts: nothing generic cause IRQs to enter CONTEXT_KERNEL, and we
> can nest
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 11:59:18AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 9:49 PM, Paul E. McKenney
paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 09:29:07PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 06:53:15PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
For
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 06:53:15PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
For reasons that mystify me a bit, we currently track context tracking
state separately from rcu's watching state. This results in strange
artifacts: nothing generic cause IRQs to enter CONTEXT_KERNEL, and we
can nest exceptions
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 04:20:57PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 03:13:36PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 2:19 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Paul E. McKenney
wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 03:13:36PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 2:19 PM, Paul E. McKenney
>> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 01:32:27PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> >> True. But context tracking
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 03:13:36PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 2:19 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 01:32:27PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> True. But context tracking wouldn't object to being exact. And I
> >> think we need context
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 2:22 PM, Paul E. McKenney
wrote:
> And please see attached for an in-process LWN article on RCU's requirements.
> If you get a chance to look it over, I would value any feedback that you
> might have.
>
Sure. Nice article!
I found the add_gp_buggy thing a bit confusing.
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 2:19 PM, Paul E. McKenney
wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 01:32:27PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> True. But context tracking wouldn't object to being exact. And I
>> think we need context tracking to treat user mode as quiescent, so
>> they're at least related.
>
>
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 01:32:27PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 11:59:18AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 9:49 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Paul E. McKenney
wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 11:59:18AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 9:49 PM, Paul E. McKenney
>> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 09:29:07PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>> >> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 11:59:18AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 9:49 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 09:29:07PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 06:53:15PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> > For reasons that mystify
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 9:49 PM, Paul E. McKenney
wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 09:29:07PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 06:53:15PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> > For reasons that mystify me a bit, we currently track context tracking
>> > state separately from
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 9:49 PM, Paul E. McKenney
paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 09:29:07PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 06:53:15PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
For reasons that mystify me a bit, we currently track context tracking
state
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 03:13:36PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 2:19 PM, Paul E. McKenney
paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 01:32:27PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
True. But context tracking wouldn't object to being exact. And I
think we
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Paul E. McKenney
paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 11:59:18AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 9:49 PM, Paul E. McKenney
paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 09:29:07PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 01:32:27PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Paul E. McKenney
paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 11:59:18AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 9:49 PM, Paul E. McKenney
paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 2:19 PM, Paul E. McKenney
paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 01:32:27PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
True. But context tracking wouldn't object to being exact. And I
think we need context tracking to treat user mode as quiescent, so
they're at
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 2:22 PM, Paul E. McKenney
paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
And please see attached for an in-process LWN article on RCU's requirements.
If you get a chance to look it over, I would value any feedback that you
might have.
Sure. Nice article!
I found the add_gp_buggy
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 11:59:18AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 9:49 PM, Paul E. McKenney
paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 09:29:07PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 06:53:15PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
For
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Paul E. McKenney
paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 03:13:36PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 2:19 PM, Paul E. McKenney
paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 01:32:27PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 04:20:57PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Paul E. McKenney
paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 03:13:36PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 2:19 PM, Paul E. McKenney
paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 09:29:07PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 06:53:15PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > For reasons that mystify me a bit, we currently track context tracking
> > state separately from rcu's watching state. This results in strange
> > artifacts:
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 06:53:15PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> For reasons that mystify me a bit, we currently track context tracking
> state separately from rcu's watching state. This results in strange
> artifacts: nothing generic cause IRQs to enter CONTEXT_KERNEL, and we
> can nest
For reasons that mystify me a bit, we currently track context tracking
state separately from rcu's watching state. This results in strange
artifacts: nothing generic cause IRQs to enter CONTEXT_KERNEL, and we
can nest exceptions inside the IRQ handler (an example would be
wrmsr_safe failing),
For reasons that mystify me a bit, we currently track context tracking
state separately from rcu's watching state. This results in strange
artifacts: nothing generic cause IRQs to enter CONTEXT_KERNEL, and we
can nest exceptions inside the IRQ handler (an example would be
wrmsr_safe failing),
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 06:53:15PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
For reasons that mystify me a bit, we currently track context tracking
state separately from rcu's watching state. This results in strange
artifacts: nothing generic cause IRQs to enter CONTEXT_KERNEL, and we
can nest exceptions
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 09:29:07PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 06:53:15PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
For reasons that mystify me a bit, we currently track context tracking
state separately from rcu's watching state. This results in strange
artifacts: nothing
28 matches
Mail list logo