On Tue, 2023-08-22 at 15:20 +0300, Mikko Rapeli wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 12:47:04PM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote: > > so between 6.1.38 and 6.1.39? > > Maybe: > > commit b1cdc56bc177c2e182c204bb08ad4e87bfd67942 > Author: Paul E. McKenney <[email protected]> > AuthorDate: Wed Apr 26 11:11:29 2023 -0700 > Commit: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]> > CommitDate: Wed Jul 19 16:21:01 2023 +0200 > > rcu-tasks: Stop rcu_tasks_invoke_cbs() from using never-onlined CPUs > > and > > commit d58f0f0ce6332ffeb406540295cc49732c26fb51 > Author: Paul E. McKenney <[email protected]> > AuthorDate: Thu Apr 27 10:50:47 2023 -0700 > Commit: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]> > CommitDate: Wed Jul 19 16:21:01 2023 +0200 > > rcu: Make rcu_cpu_starting() rely on interrupts being disabled > > ? > > master branch seems to have larger set of changes to rcu.
I wondered that but my test says deda0761dc6161f03278da4679d96d4727992e91 is "good" which is after those. > Maybe locking debugging options could help to find this on every boot. Perhaps. I think given where I'm at now I'll just try and bisect it... > Then wasn't > > commit 77cc52f1b8d76c995648cb4286e57142cac8ce0a > Author: Wen Yang <[email protected]> > AuthorDate: Fri May 5 00:12:53 2023 +0800 > Commit: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]> > CommitDate: Wed Jul 19 16:20:59 2023 +0200 > > tick/rcu: Fix bogus ratelimit condition > > [ Upstream commit a7e282c77785c7eabf98836431b1f029481085ad ] > > causing some issues too? Yes, but I think this is something different... Cheers, Richard
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#186506): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/186506 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/100733646/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
