On 9 March 2017 at 16:50, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 07:29:26AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 04:12:55PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 02:08:23PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > On
On 9 March 2017 at 16:50, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 07:29:26AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 04:12:55PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 02:08:23PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 8 Mar 2017, Paul E.
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 09:32:37AM +0100, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> On 9 March 2017 at 16:50, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 07:29:26AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 04:12:55PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > On
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 09:32:37AM +0100, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> On 9 March 2017 at 16:50, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 07:29:26AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 04:12:55PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at
On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 07:29:26AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 04:12:55PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 02:08:23PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > On Wed, 8 Mar 2017, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > [ 30.694013]
On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 07:29:26AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 04:12:55PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 02:08:23PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > On Wed, 8 Mar 2017, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > [ 30.694013]
On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 04:12:55PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 02:08:23PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Wed, 8 Mar 2017, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > [ 30.694013] lockdep_rcu_suspicious+0xe7/0x120
> > > [ 30.694013] get_work_pool+0x82/0x90
> > > [
On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 04:12:55PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 02:08:23PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Wed, 8 Mar 2017, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > [ 30.694013] lockdep_rcu_suspicious+0xe7/0x120
> > > [ 30.694013] get_work_pool+0x82/0x90
> > > [
On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 02:08:23PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Mar 2017, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > [ 30.694013] lockdep_rcu_suspicious+0xe7/0x120
> > [ 30.694013] get_work_pool+0x82/0x90
> > [ 30.694013] __queue_work+0x70/0x5f0
> > [ 30.694013] queue_work_on+0x33/0x70
>
On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 02:08:23PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Mar 2017, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > [ 30.694013] lockdep_rcu_suspicious+0xe7/0x120
> > [ 30.694013] get_work_pool+0x82/0x90
> > [ 30.694013] __queue_work+0x70/0x5f0
> > [ 30.694013] queue_work_on+0x33/0x70
>
On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 02:08:23PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Mar 2017, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > [ 30.694013] lockdep_rcu_suspicious+0xe7/0x120
> > [ 30.694013] get_work_pool+0x82/0x90
> > [ 30.694013] __queue_work+0x70/0x5f0
> > [ 30.694013] queue_work_on+0x33/0x70
>
On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 02:08:23PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Mar 2017, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > [ 30.694013] lockdep_rcu_suspicious+0xe7/0x120
> > [ 30.694013] get_work_pool+0x82/0x90
> > [ 30.694013] __queue_work+0x70/0x5f0
> > [ 30.694013] queue_work_on+0x33/0x70
>
On Wed, 8 Mar 2017, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> [ 30.694013] lockdep_rcu_suspicious+0xe7/0x120
> [ 30.694013] get_work_pool+0x82/0x90
> [ 30.694013] __queue_work+0x70/0x5f0
> [ 30.694013] queue_work_on+0x33/0x70
> [ 30.694013] clear_sched_clock_stable+0x33/0x40
> [ 30.694013]
On Wed, 8 Mar 2017, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> [ 30.694013] lockdep_rcu_suspicious+0xe7/0x120
> [ 30.694013] get_work_pool+0x82/0x90
> [ 30.694013] __queue_work+0x70/0x5f0
> [ 30.694013] queue_work_on+0x33/0x70
> [ 30.694013] clear_sched_clock_stable+0x33/0x40
> [ 30.694013]
Hello!
I am seeing the following splat in rcutorture testing of v4.11-rc1:
[ 30.694013] =
[ 30.694013] WARNING: suspicious RCU usage
[ 30.694013] 4.11.0-rc1+ #1 Not tainted
[ 30.694013] -
[ 30.694013]
Hello!
I am seeing the following splat in rcutorture testing of v4.11-rc1:
[ 30.694013] =
[ 30.694013] WARNING: suspicious RCU usage
[ 30.694013] 4.11.0-rc1+ #1 Not tainted
[ 30.694013] -
[ 30.694013]
On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 04:55:29AM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 03:41:52PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 02:16:56PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > Hello!
> > >
> > > I am seeing the following splat in rcutorture testing of
On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 04:55:29AM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 03:41:52PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 02:16:56PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > Hello!
> > >
> > > I am seeing the following splat in rcutorture testing of
On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 03:41:52PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 02:16:56PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Hello!
> >
> > I am seeing the following splat in rcutorture testing of v4.11-rc1:
> >
> > [ 30.694013] =
> > [ 30.694013]
On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 03:41:52PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 02:16:56PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Hello!
> >
> > I am seeing the following splat in rcutorture testing of v4.11-rc1:
> >
> > [ 30.694013] =
> > [ 30.694013]
On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 02:16:56PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I am seeing the following splat in rcutorture testing of v4.11-rc1:
>
> [ 30.694013] =
> [ 30.694013] WARNING: suspicious RCU usage
> [ 30.694013] 4.11.0-rc1+ #1 Not tainted
> [
On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 02:16:56PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I am seeing the following splat in rcutorture testing of v4.11-rc1:
>
> [ 30.694013] =
> [ 30.694013] WARNING: suspicious RCU usage
> [ 30.694013] 4.11.0-rc1+ #1 Not tainted
> [
22 matches
Mail list logo