On 2019/02/07 1:23, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 06, 2019 at 11:57:45PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>> On 2019/02/06 23:36, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 06, 2019 at 03:31:09PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
(Adding linux-arch ML.)
Rusty Russell wrote:
> Tetsuo Handa wri
On Wed, Feb 06, 2019 at 11:57:45PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> On 2019/02/06 23:36, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 06, 2019 at 03:31:09PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> >> (Adding linux-arch ML.)
> >>
> >> Rusty Russell wrote:
> >>> Tetsuo Handa writes:
> (Adding Chris Metcalf and Rusty
On 2019/02/06 23:36, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 06, 2019 at 03:31:09PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>> (Adding linux-arch ML.)
>>
>> Rusty Russell wrote:
>>> Tetsuo Handa writes:
(Adding Chris Metcalf and Rusty Russell.)
If NR_CPUS == 1 due to CONFIG_SMP=n, for_each_cpu(cpu, &
On Wed, Feb 06, 2019 at 03:31:09PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> (Adding linux-arch ML.)
>
> Rusty Russell wrote:
> > Tetsuo Handa writes:
> > > (Adding Chris Metcalf and Rusty Russell.)
> > >
> > > If NR_CPUS == 1 due to CONFIG_SMP=n, for_each_cpu(cpu, &has_work) loop
> > > does not
> > > evalua
(Adding linux-arch ML.)
Rusty Russell wrote:
> Tetsuo Handa writes:
> > (Adding Chris Metcalf and Rusty Russell.)
> >
> > If NR_CPUS == 1 due to CONFIG_SMP=n, for_each_cpu(cpu, &has_work) loop does
> > not
> > evaluate "struct cpumask has_work" modified by cpumask_set_cpu(cpu,
> > &has_work) at
Tetsuo Handa writes:
> (Adding Chris Metcalf and Rusty Russell.)
>
> If NR_CPUS == 1 due to CONFIG_SMP=n, for_each_cpu(cpu, &has_work) loop does
> not
> evaluate "struct cpumask has_work" modified by cpumask_set_cpu(cpu,
> &has_work) at
> previous for_each_online_cpu() loop. Guenter Roeck found
(Adding Chris Metcalf and Rusty Russell.)
If NR_CPUS == 1 due to CONFIG_SMP=n, for_each_cpu(cpu, &has_work) loop does not
evaluate "struct cpumask has_work" modified by cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, &has_work)
at
previous for_each_online_cpu() loop. Guenter Roeck found a problem among three
commits listed
Commit "workqueue: Try to catch flush_work() without INIT_WORK()" added
a warning if flush_work() is called without worker function.
This results in the following tracebacks, typically observed during
system shutdown.
[ cut here ]
WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 101 at kernel/workqu
8 matches
Mail list logo