On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 04:39:34PM +0200, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> On 6/11/19 3:54 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 03:14:54PM +0200, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> >>On 6/8/19 6:41 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >>>On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 03:29:32PM +0200, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
On 6/11/19 3:54 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 03:14:54PM +0200, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
On 6/8/19 6:41 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 03:29:32PM +0200, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
On 6/4/19 9:45 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 03:14:54PM +0200, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> On 6/8/19 6:41 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 03:29:32PM +0200, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> >>On 6/4/19 9:45 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >>>On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 03:39:18PM +0200, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
On 6/8/19 6:41 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 03:29:32PM +0200, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
On 6/4/19 9:45 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 03:39:18PM +0200, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
On 6/3/19 1:44 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 10:38:48AM
On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 03:29:32PM +0200, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> On 6/4/19 9:45 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 03:39:18PM +0200, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> >>On 6/3/19 1:44 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >>>On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 10:38:48AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
On 6/4/19 9:45 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 03:39:18PM +0200, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
On 6/3/19 1:44 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 10:38:48AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Sat, Jun 01, 2019 at 06:12:53PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 01:14:35AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 10:38:48AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > And then there's powerpc which for some obscure reason thinks it needs
> > to enable preemption when dying ?! pseries_cpu_die() actually calls
> > msleep() ?!?!
On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 10:38:48AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 01, 2019 at 06:12:53PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Scheduling-clock interrupts can arrive late in the CPU-offline process,
> > after idle entry and the subsequent call to cpuhp_report_idle_dead().
> > Once
On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 03:39:18PM +0200, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> On 6/3/19 1:44 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 10:38:48AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >>On Sat, Jun 01, 2019 at 06:12:53PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >>>Scheduling-clock interrupts can arrive late in
On 6/3/19 1:44 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 10:38:48AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Sat, Jun 01, 2019 at 06:12:53PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
Scheduling-clock interrupts can arrive late in the CPU-offline process,
after idle entry and the subsequent call to
On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 10:38:48AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 01, 2019 at 06:12:53PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Scheduling-clock interrupts can arrive late in the CPU-offline process,
> > after idle entry and the subsequent call to cpuhp_report_idle_dead().
> > Once
On Sat, Jun 01, 2019 at 06:12:53PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Scheduling-clock interrupts can arrive late in the CPU-offline process,
> after idle entry and the subsequent call to cpuhp_report_idle_dead().
> Once execution passes the call to rcu_report_dead(), RCU is ignoring
> the CPU,
Scheduling-clock interrupts can arrive late in the CPU-offline process,
after idle entry and the subsequent call to cpuhp_report_idle_dead().
Once execution passes the call to rcu_report_dead(), RCU is ignoring
the CPU, which results in lockdep complaints when the interrupt handler
uses RCU:
13 matches
Mail list logo