Hi Sebastian,
On 19/08/2019 08:33, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
On 2019-08-16 17:32:38 [+0100], Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Sebastian,
Hi Julien,
hrtimer_callback_running() will be returning true as the callback is
running somewhere else. This means hrtimer_try_to_cancel()
would return -1.
On 2019-08-16 17:32:38 [+0100], Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi Sebastian,
Hi Julien,
> hrtimer_callback_running() will be returning true as the callback is
> running somewhere else. This means hrtimer_try_to_cancel()
> would return -1. Therefore hrtimer_grab_expiry_lock() would
> be called.
>
> Did I
Hi Sebastian,
On 16/08/2019 16:23, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2019-08-16 16:18:20 [+0100], Julien Grall wrote:
>> Sadly, I managed to hit the same BUG_ON() today with this patch
>> applied on top v5.2-rt1-rebase. :/ Although, it is more difficult
>> to hit than previously.
>>
>> [
On 2019-08-16 16:18:20 [+0100], Julien Grall wrote:
> Sadly, I managed to hit the same BUG_ON() today with this patch
> applied on top v5.2-rt1-rebase. :/ Although, it is more difficult
> to hit than previously.
>
> [ 157.449545] 000: BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at
>
Hi all,
On 13/08/2019 17:24, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 16:44:21 +0100,
> Julien Grall wrote:
>>
>> Hi Sebastian,
>>
>> On 8/13/19 1:58 PM, bige...@linutronix.de wrote:
>>> On 2019-07-27 14:37:11 [+0100], Julien Grall wrote:
>> 8<
>> ---
On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 16:44:21 +0100,
Julien Grall wrote:
>
> Hi Sebastian,
>
> On 8/13/19 1:58 PM, bige...@linutronix.de wrote:
> > On 2019-07-27 14:37:11 [+0100], Julien Grall wrote:
> 8<
> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/arch_timer.c
> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/arch_timer.c
> @@
Hi Sebastian,
On 8/13/19 1:58 PM, bige...@linutronix.de wrote:
On 2019-07-27 14:37:11 [+0100], Julien Grall wrote:
8<
--- a/virt/kvm/arm/arch_timer.c
+++ b/virt/kvm/arm/arch_timer.c
@@ -80,7 +80,7 @@ static inline bool userspace_irqchip(str
static void soft_timer_start(struct
On 2019-07-27 14:37:11 [+0100], Julien Grall wrote:
> > > 8<
> > > --- a/virt/kvm/arm/arch_timer.c
> > > +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/arch_timer.c
> > > @@ -80,7 +80,7 @@ static inline bool userspace_irqchip(str
> > > static void soft_timer_start(struct hrtimer *hrt, u64 ns)
> > > {
> > >
Hi,
On 7/27/19 12:13 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jul 2019 23:58:38 +0100,
Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jul 2019, Marc Zyngier wrote:
On 23/07/2019 18:58, Julien Grall wrote:
It really feels like a change in hrtimer_cancel semantics. From what I
understand, this is used to avoid
Hi Thomas,
On Fri, 26 Jul 2019 23:58:38 +0100,
Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> On Wed, 24 Jul 2019, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > On 23/07/2019 18:58, Julien Grall wrote:
> > It really feels like a change in hrtimer_cancel semantics. From what I
> > understand, this is used to avoid racing against the
On Wed, 24 Jul 2019, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 23/07/2019 18:58, Julien Grall wrote:
> It really feels like a change in hrtimer_cancel semantics. From what I
> understand, this is used to avoid racing against the softirq, but boy it
> breaks things.
>
> If this cannot be avoided, this means we
Julien,
On 23/07/2019 18:58, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have been playing with the latest branch of Linux RT (5.2-rt1) and notice
> the
> following splat when starting a KVM guest.
>
> [ 122.336254] 003: BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at
>
Hi all,
I have been playing with the latest branch of Linux RT (5.2-rt1) and notice the
following splat when starting a KVM guest.
[ 122.336254] 003: BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at
kernel/locking/rtmutex.c:968
[ 122.336263] 003: in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 0,
13 matches
Mail list logo
