On Tue, 2017-04-11 at 00:23 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 08, 2017 at 07:01:34AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 21:56 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >
> > > OK. test3 and test4 are now pushed: test3 should fix your hang,
> > > test4 is trying to fix a
On Tue, 2017-04-11 at 00:23 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 08, 2017 at 07:01:34AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 21:56 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >
> > > OK. test3 and test4 are now pushed: test3 should fix your hang,
> > > test4 is trying to fix a
On Sat, Apr 08, 2017 at 07:01:34AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 21:56 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
> > OK. test3 and test4 are now pushed: test3 should fix your hang,
> > test4 is trying to fix a crash reported independently.
>
> test3 does not fix the post
On Sat, Apr 08, 2017 at 07:01:34AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 21:56 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
> > OK. test3 and test4 are now pushed: test3 should fix your hang,
> > test4 is trying to fix a crash reported independently.
>
> test3 does not fix the post
On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 21:56 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> OK. test3 and test4 are now pushed: test3 should fix your hang,
> test4 is trying to fix a crash reported independently.
test3 does not fix the post hibernate hang business that I can easily
reproduce, those are NFS, and at least as
On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 21:56 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> OK. test3 and test4 are now pushed: test3 should fix your hang,
> test4 is trying to fix a crash reported independently.
test3 does not fix the post hibernate hang business that I can easily
reproduce, those are NFS, and at least as
On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 04:29:53PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 16:35 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
> > Oh wait, I still put the ctx feature patches in there :(
> > Pls ignore, I'll update when I've fixed it up. Sorry about the noise.
>
> Both worked fine w/wo
On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 04:29:53PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 16:35 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
> > Oh wait, I still put the ctx feature patches in there :(
> > Pls ignore, I'll update when I've fixed it up. Sorry about the noise.
>
> Both worked fine w/wo
On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 16:35 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> Oh wait, I still put the ctx feature patches in there :(
> Pls ignore, I'll update when I've fixed it up. Sorry about the noise.
Both worked fine w/wo threadirqs.
-Mike
On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 16:35 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> Oh wait, I still put the ctx feature patches in there :(
> Pls ignore, I'll update when I've fixed it up. Sorry about the noise.
Both worked fine w/wo threadirqs.
-Mike
On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 04:20:12PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 09:22:02AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 09:05 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 08:44 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 09:24
On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 04:20:12PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 09:22:02AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 09:05 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 08:44 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 09:24
On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 09:22:02AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 09:05 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 08:44 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 09:24 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 08:03:19AM
On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 09:22:02AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 09:05 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 08:44 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 09:24 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 08:03:19AM
On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 09:22 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 09:05 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 08:44 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 09:24 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 08:03:19AM +0200, Mike
On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 09:22 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 09:05 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 08:44 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 09:24 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 08:03:19AM +0200, Mike
On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 09:05 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 08:44 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 09:24 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 08:03:19AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >
> > > > Test tag works fine here w/wo
On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 09:05 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 08:44 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 09:24 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 08:03:19AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >
> > > > Test tag works fine here w/wo
On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 08:44 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 09:24 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 08:03:19AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> > > Test tag works fine here w/wo threadirqs, RT works as well.
> > >
> > > -Mike
> >
> > Thanks a
On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 08:44 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 09:24 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 08:03:19AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> > > Test tag works fine here w/wo threadirqs, RT works as well.
> > >
> > > -Mike
> >
> > Thanks a
On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 09:24 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 08:03:19AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > Test tag works fine here w/wo threadirqs, RT works as well.
> >
> > -Mike
>
> Thanks a lot.
> OK I pushed out two new tags
> test1 with just the cleanup
On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 09:24 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 08:03:19AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > Test tag works fine here w/wo threadirqs, RT works as well.
> >
> > -Mike
>
> Thanks a lot.
> OK I pushed out two new tags
> test1 with just the cleanup
On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 08:03:19AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-04-06 at 00:38 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
> > What I did is a revert the refactorings while keeping the affinity API -
> > we can safely postpone them until the next release without loss of
> > functionality.
On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 08:03:19AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-04-06 at 00:38 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
> > What I did is a revert the refactorings while keeping the affinity API -
> > we can safely postpone them until the next release without loss of
> > functionality.
On Thu, 2017-04-06 at 00:38 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> What I did is a revert the refactorings while keeping the affinity API -
> we can safely postpone them until the next release without loss of
> functionality. But that's on top of my testing tree so it has unrelated
> stuff as well.
On Thu, 2017-04-06 at 00:38 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> What I did is a revert the refactorings while keeping the affinity API -
> we can safely postpone them until the next release without loss of
> functionality. But that's on top of my testing tree so it has unrelated
> stuff as well.
On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 08:29:34AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 06:24:50AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Wed, 2017-04-05 at 06:51 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >
> > > Any issues at all left with this tree?
> > > In particular any regressions?
> >
> >
On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 08:29:34AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 06:24:50AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Wed, 2017-04-05 at 06:51 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >
> > > Any issues at all left with this tree?
> > > In particular any regressions?
> >
> >
On Wed, 2017-04-05 at 08:29 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Can you check where the issues appear? I'd like to do a pure revert
> of the shared interrupts, but that three has a lot more in it..
Not immediately, one of my several pots is emitting black smoke.
-Mike
On Wed, 2017-04-05 at 08:29 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Can you check where the issues appear? I'd like to do a pure revert
> of the shared interrupts, but that three has a lot more in it..
Not immediately, one of my several pots is emitting black smoke.
-Mike
On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 07:14:22PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 04:18:23PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > Mike,
> >
> > can you try the patch below?
> >
> > ---
> > >From fe41a30b54878cc631623b7511267125e0da4b15 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Christoph
On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 07:14:22PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 04:18:23PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > Mike,
> >
> > can you try the patch below?
> >
> > ---
> > >From fe41a30b54878cc631623b7511267125e0da4b15 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Christoph
On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 06:24:50AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-04-05 at 06:51 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
> > Any issues at all left with this tree?
> > In particular any regressions?
>
> Nothing blatantly obvious in a testdrive that lasted a couple minutes.
> I'd have
On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 06:24:50AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-04-05 at 06:51 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
> > Any issues at all left with this tree?
> > In particular any regressions?
>
> Nothing blatantly obvious in a testdrive that lasted a couple minutes.
> I'd have
On Wed, 2017-04-05 at 06:51 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> Any issues at all left with this tree?
> In particular any regressions?
Nothing blatantly obvious in a testdrive that lasted a couple minutes.
I'd have to beat on it a bit to look for things beyond the reported,
but can't afford to
On Wed, 2017-04-05 at 06:51 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> Any issues at all left with this tree?
> In particular any regressions?
Nothing blatantly obvious in a testdrive that lasted a couple minutes.
I'd have to beat on it a bit to look for things beyond the reported,
but can't afford to
On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 05:24:30AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-04-05 at 06:13 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 05:09:09AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2017-04-04 at 22:03 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > >
> > > > since I couldn't
On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 05:24:30AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-04-05 at 06:13 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 05:09:09AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2017-04-04 at 22:03 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > >
> > > > since I couldn't
On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 05:40:06AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-04-05 at 05:24 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Wed, 2017-04-05 at 06:13 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 05:09:09AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2017-04-04 at 22:03
On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 05:40:06AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-04-05 at 05:24 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Wed, 2017-04-05 at 06:13 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 05:09:09AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2017-04-04 at 22:03
On Wed, 2017-04-05 at 05:24 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-04-05 at 06:13 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 05:09:09AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2017-04-04 at 22:03 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > >
> > > > since I couldn't reproduce,
On Wed, 2017-04-05 at 05:24 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-04-05 at 06:13 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 05:09:09AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2017-04-04 at 22:03 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > >
> > > > since I couldn't reproduce,
On Wed, 2017-04-05 at 06:13 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 05:09:09AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Tue, 2017-04-04 at 22:03 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >
> > > since I couldn't reproduce, I decided it's worth trying to see
> > > what happens if we revert
On Wed, 2017-04-05 at 06:13 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 05:09:09AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Tue, 2017-04-04 at 22:03 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >
> > > since I couldn't reproduce, I decided it's worth trying to see
> > > what happens if we revert
On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 05:09:09AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-04-04 at 22:03 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
> > since I couldn't reproduce, I decided it's worth trying to see
> > what happens if we revert back to before 5c34d002dcc7.
> >
> >
> > Could you please test a tag
On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 05:09:09AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-04-04 at 22:03 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
> > since I couldn't reproduce, I decided it's worth trying to see
> > what happens if we revert back to before 5c34d002dcc7.
> >
> >
> > Could you please test a tag
On Tue, 2017-04-04 at 22:03 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> since I couldn't reproduce, I decided it's worth trying to see
> what happens if we revert back to before 5c34d002dcc7.
>
>
> Could you please test a tag "test" in my tree above?
> It should point at
On Tue, 2017-04-04 at 22:03 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> since I couldn't reproduce, I decided it's worth trying to see
> what happens if we revert back to before 5c34d002dcc7.
>
>
> Could you please test a tag "test" in my tree above?
> It should point at
On Wed, 2017-04-05 at 00:31 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 08:38:35PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Tue, 2017-04-04 at 21:00 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >
> > > And just making double sure, the 1st version that has the issue
> > > is 5c34d002dcc7, isn't
On Wed, 2017-04-05 at 00:31 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 08:38:35PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Tue, 2017-04-04 at 21:00 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >
> > > And just making double sure, the 1st version that has the issue
> > > is 5c34d002dcc7, isn't
On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 08:38:35PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-04-04 at 21:00 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
> > And just making double sure, the 1st version that has the issue
> > is 5c34d002dcc7, isn't it? I'm asking because subject says so
> > but then goes on to list
On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 08:38:35PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-04-04 at 21:00 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
> > And just making double sure, the 1st version that has the issue
> > is 5c34d002dcc7, isn't it? I'm asking because subject says so
> > but then goes on to list
On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 07:54:36PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-04-04 at 19:40 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Tue, 2017-04-04 at 18:30 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >
> > > I couldn't reproduce it - let's make sure we are using the
> > > same tree. Could you pls try
> > >
On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 07:54:36PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-04-04 at 19:40 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Tue, 2017-04-04 at 18:30 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >
> > > I couldn't reproduce it - let's make sure we are using the
> > > same tree. Could you pls try
> > >
On Tue, 2017-04-04 at 21:00 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> And just making double sure, the 1st version that has the issue
> is 5c34d002dcc7, isn't it? I'm asking because subject says so
> but then goes on to list subject from another commit.
> This one is:
> > virtio_pci: remove struct
On Tue, 2017-04-04 at 21:00 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> And just making double sure, the 1st version that has the issue
> is 5c34d002dcc7, isn't it? I'm asking because subject says so
> but then goes on to list subject from another commit.
> This one is:
> > virtio_pci: remove struct
On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 07:54:36PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-04-04 at 19:40 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Tue, 2017-04-04 at 18:30 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >
> > > I couldn't reproduce it - let's make sure we are using the
> > > same tree. Could you pls try
> > >
On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 07:54:36PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-04-04 at 19:40 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Tue, 2017-04-04 at 18:30 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >
> > > I couldn't reproduce it - let's make sure we are using the
> > > same tree. Could you pls try
> > >
On Tue, 2017-04-04 at 19:40 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-04-04 at 18:30 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
> > I couldn't reproduce it - let's make sure we are using the
> > same tree. Could you pls try
> >
> > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mst/vhost.git linux
> >
On Tue, 2017-04-04 at 19:40 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-04-04 at 18:30 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
> > I couldn't reproduce it - let's make sure we are using the
> > same tree. Could you pls try
> >
> > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mst/vhost.git linux
> >
On Tue, 2017-04-04 at 18:30 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> I couldn't reproduce it - let's make sure we are using the
> same tree. Could you pls try
>
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mst/vhost.git linux-next
>
> It's currently at cc79d42a7d7e57ff64f406a1fd3740afebac0b44
On Tue, 2017-04-04 at 18:30 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> I couldn't reproduce it - let's make sure we are using the
> same tree. Could you pls try
>
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mst/vhost.git linux-next
>
> It's currently at cc79d42a7d7e57ff64f406a1fd3740afebac0b44
On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 04:18:02PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-04-04 at 16:38 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 06:02:52AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2017-04-03 at 21:11 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at
On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 04:18:02PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-04-04 at 16:38 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 06:02:52AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2017-04-03 at 21:11 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at
On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 04:18:02PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-04-04 at 16:38 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 06:02:52AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2017-04-03 at 21:11 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at
On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 04:18:02PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-04-04 at 16:38 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 06:02:52AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2017-04-03 at 21:11 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at
On Tue, 2017-04-04 at 16:38 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 06:02:52AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Mon, 2017-04-03 at 21:11 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 07:56:32PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2017-04-03 at 16:18
On Tue, 2017-04-04 at 16:38 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 06:02:52AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Mon, 2017-04-03 at 21:11 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 07:56:32PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2017-04-03 at 16:18
On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 06:02:52AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-04-03 at 21:11 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 07:56:32PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2017-04-03 at 16:18 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > > Mike,
> > > >
> > > > can
On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 06:02:52AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-04-03 at 21:11 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 07:56:32PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2017-04-03 at 16:18 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > > Mike,
> > > >
> > > > can
On Mon, 2017-04-03 at 21:11 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 07:56:32PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Mon, 2017-04-03 at 16:18 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > Mike,
> > >
> > > can you try the patch below?
> >
> > No more spinning kworker woes, but I still
On Mon, 2017-04-03 at 21:11 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 07:56:32PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Mon, 2017-04-03 at 16:18 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > Mike,
> > >
> > > can you try the patch below?
> >
> > No more spinning kworker woes, but I still
On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 07:56:32PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-04-03 at 16:18 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > Mike,
> >
> > can you try the patch below?
>
> No more spinning kworker woes, but I still have a warning on hibernate,
> threadirqs invariant. I'm also seeing
On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 07:56:32PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-04-03 at 16:18 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > Mike,
> >
> > can you try the patch below?
>
> No more spinning kworker woes, but I still have a warning on hibernate,
> threadirqs invariant. I'm also seeing
On Mon, 2017-04-03 at 16:18 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Mike,
>
> can you try the patch below?
No more spinning kworker woes, but I still have a warning on hibernate,
threadirqs invariant. I'm also seeing intermittent post hibernate hang
funnies in virgin source +- this patch, and without
On Mon, 2017-04-03 at 16:18 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Mike,
>
> can you try the patch below?
No more spinning kworker woes, but I still have a warning on hibernate,
threadirqs invariant. I'm also seeing intermittent post hibernate hang
funnies in virgin source +- this patch, and without
On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 04:18:23PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Mike,
>
> can you try the patch below?
>
> ---
> >From fe41a30b54878cc631623b7511267125e0da4b15 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Christoph Hellwig
> Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 14:51:35 +0200
> Subject: virtio_pci:
On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 04:18:23PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Mike,
>
> can you try the patch below?
>
> ---
> >From fe41a30b54878cc631623b7511267125e0da4b15 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Christoph Hellwig
> Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 14:51:35 +0200
> Subject: virtio_pci: don't use shared
On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 04:18:23PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Mike,
>
> can you try the patch below?
It's really easy to test on qemu so I will - just add a dummy
virtio-serial-pci device with -device virtio-serial-pci and
add threadirqs to kernel command line.
However it doesn't look
On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 04:18:23PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Mike,
>
> can you try the patch below?
It's really easy to test on qemu so I will - just add a dummy
virtio-serial-pci device with -device virtio-serial-pci and
add threadirqs to kernel command line.
However it doesn't look
Mike,
can you try the patch below?
---
>From fe41a30b54878cc631623b7511267125e0da4b15 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Christoph Hellwig
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 14:51:35 +0200
Subject: virtio_pci: don't use shared irq for virtqueues
Reimplement the shared irq feature manually, as we
Mike,
can you try the patch below?
---
>From fe41a30b54878cc631623b7511267125e0da4b15 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Christoph Hellwig
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 14:51:35 +0200
Subject: virtio_pci: don't use shared irq for virtqueues
Reimplement the shared irq feature manually, as we might have a
On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 10:20:49AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 06:22:31AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > I'm not sure why does it fail after 32 on 64 bit, but as
> > virtio devices aren't limited to 32 vqs it looks like we
> > should go back to requesting the
On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 10:20:49AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 06:22:31AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > I'm not sure why does it fail after 32 on 64 bit, but as
> > virtio devices aren't limited to 32 vqs it looks like we
> > should go back to requesting the
On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 06:22:31AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> I'm not sure why does it fail after 32 on 64 bit, but as
> virtio devices aren't limited to 32 vqs it looks like we
> should go back to requesting the irq only once for all vqs.
Meh.
>
> Christoph, should I just revert for
On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 06:22:31AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> I'm not sure why does it fail after 32 on 64 bit, but as
> virtio devices aren't limited to 32 vqs it looks like we
> should go back to requesting the irq only once for all vqs.
Meh.
>
> Christoph, should I just revert for
On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 04:23:35AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 09:20:35AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Thu, 2017-03-30 at 05:10 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >
> > > WRT spin, you should need do nothing more than boot with threadirqs,
> > > that's 100%
On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 04:23:35AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 09:20:35AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Thu, 2017-03-30 at 05:10 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >
> > > WRT spin, you should need do nothing more than boot with threadirqs,
> > > that's 100%
On Thu, 2017-03-30 at 05:10 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> WRT spin, you should need do nothing more than boot with threadirqs,
> that's 100% repeatable here in absolutely virgin source.
No idea why virtqueue_get_buf() in __send_control_msg() fails forever
with threadirqs, but marking that vq as
On Thu, 2017-03-30 at 05:10 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> WRT spin, you should need do nothing more than boot with threadirqs,
> that's 100% repeatable here in absolutely virgin source.
No idea why virtqueue_get_buf() in __send_control_msg() fails forever
with threadirqs, but marking that vq as
On Wed, 2017-03-29 at 23:19 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >max_nr_ports) == 0) {
> > @@ -2179,7 +2179,9 @@ static struct virtio_device_id id_table[
> >
> > static unsigned int features[] = {
> > > >> > VIRTIO_CONSOLE_F_SIZE,
> > +#ifndef
On Wed, 2017-03-29 at 23:19 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >max_nr_ports) == 0) {
> > @@ -2179,7 +2179,9 @@ static struct virtio_device_id id_table[
> >
> > static unsigned int features[] = {
> > > >> > VIRTIO_CONSOLE_F_SIZE,
> > +#ifndef
On Wed, 2017-03-29 at 23:10 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> Poking at this some more, I was able to reproduce at
> least some warnings. I still do not see a spin
> but is there a chance this helps your case too?
Well, it's down to one warning, clean on the way back up.
WRT spin, you should
On Wed, 2017-03-29 at 23:10 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> Poking at this some more, I was able to reproduce at
> least some warnings. I still do not see a spin
> but is there a chance this helps your case too?
Well, it's down to one warning, clean on the way back up.
WRT spin, you should
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 08:23:22AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-03-27 at 20:18 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> > BTW, WRT RT woes with $subject, I tried booting a generic kernel with
> > threadirqs, and bingo, same deal, just a bit more painful than for RT,
> > where there's no
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 08:23:22AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-03-27 at 20:18 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> > BTW, WRT RT woes with $subject, I tried booting a generic kernel with
> > threadirqs, and bingo, same deal, just a bit more painful than for RT,
> > where there's no
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 08:23:22AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-03-27 at 20:18 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> > BTW, WRT RT woes with $subject, I tried booting a generic kernel with
> > threadirqs, and bingo, same deal, just a bit more painful than for RT,
> > where there's no
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 08:23:22AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-03-27 at 20:18 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> > BTW, WRT RT woes with $subject, I tried booting a generic kernel with
> > threadirqs, and bingo, same deal, just a bit more painful than for RT,
> > where there's no
On Mon, 2017-03-27 at 20:18 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> BTW, WRT RT woes with $subject, I tried booting a generic kernel with
> threadirqs, and bingo, same deal, just a bit more painful than for RT,
> where there's no watchdog moaning accompanying the (preemptible) spin.
BTW++: the last hunk
On Mon, 2017-03-27 at 20:18 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> BTW, WRT RT woes with $subject, I tried booting a generic kernel with
> threadirqs, and bingo, same deal, just a bit more painful than for RT,
> where there's no watchdog moaning accompanying the (preemptible) spin.
BTW++: the last hunk
1 - 100 of 136 matches
Mail list logo