Hi,
On ma, 2016-02-15 at 18:06 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 03:17:55PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 02:36:43PM +0200, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> > > Instead of implementing a custom locked reference counting, use lockref.
> > >
> > > Current
Hi,
On ma, 2016-02-15 at 18:06 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 03:17:55PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 02:36:43PM +0200, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> > > Instead of implementing a custom locked reference counting, use lockref.
> > >
> > > Current
On ke, 2016-02-17 at 17:37 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 05:33:51PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 05:14:57PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 05:13:21PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > > And for context we're hitting
On ke, 2016-02-17 at 17:37 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 05:33:51PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 05:14:57PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 05:13:21PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > > And for context we're hitting
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 05:33:51PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 05:14:57PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 05:13:21PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > And for context we're hitting this on CI in a bunch of our machines, which
> >
> > What's CI ?
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 05:33:51PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 05:14:57PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 05:13:21PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > And for context we're hitting this on CI in a bunch of our machines, which
> >
> > What's CI ?
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 05:14:57PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 05:13:21PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > And for context we're hitting this on CI in a bunch of our machines, which
>
> What's CI ?
Continuous integration, aka our own farm of machines dedicated to
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 05:14:57PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 05:13:21PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > And for context we're hitting this on CI in a bunch of our machines, which
>
> What's CI ?
Continuous integration, aka our own farm of machines dedicated to
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 05:13:21PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> And for context we're hitting this on CI in a bunch of our machines, which
What's CI ?
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 05:13:21PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> And for context we're hitting this on CI in a bunch of our machines, which
What's CI ?
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 03:20:05PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 02:47:31PM +0200, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> > On ti, 2016-02-16 at 12:07 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 12:51:03PM +0200, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> > > > Quoting my original patch;
>
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 03:20:05PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 02:47:31PM +0200, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> > On ti, 2016-02-16 at 12:07 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 12:51:03PM +0200, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> > > > Quoting my original patch;
>
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 02:47:31PM +0200, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> On ti, 2016-02-16 at 12:07 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 12:51:03PM +0200, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> > > Quoting my original patch;
> > >
> > > "See the Bugzilla link for more details.
> >
> > If its not
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 02:47:31PM +0200, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> On ti, 2016-02-16 at 12:07 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 12:51:03PM +0200, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> > > Quoting my original patch;
> > >
> > > "See the Bugzilla link for more details.
> >
> > If its not
On ti, 2016-02-16 at 12:07 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 12:51:03PM +0200, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> > Quoting my original patch;
> >
> > "See the Bugzilla link for more details.
>
> If its not in the Changelog it doesn't exist. Patches should be self
> contained and not
On ti, 2016-02-16 at 12:07 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 12:51:03PM +0200, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> > Quoting my original patch;
> >
> > "See the Bugzilla link for more details.
>
> If its not in the Changelog it doesn't exist. Patches should be self
> contained and not
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 12:51:03PM +0200, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> Quoting my original patch;
>
> "See the Bugzilla link for more details.
If its not in the Changelog it doesn't exist. Patches should be self
contained and not refer to external sources for critical information.
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 12:51:03PM +0200, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> Quoting my original patch;
>
> "See the Bugzilla link for more details.
If its not in the Changelog it doesn't exist. Patches should be self
contained and not refer to external sources for critical information.
On ti, 2016-02-16 at 10:14 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 10:49:36AM +0200, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> > I originally thought of implementing this more similar to what you
> > specify, but then I came across a discussion in the mailing list where
> > it was NAKed adding more
On ti, 2016-02-16 at 10:14 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 10:49:36AM +0200, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> > I originally thought of implementing this more similar to what you
> > specify, but then I came across a discussion in the mailing list where
> > it was NAKed adding more
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 10:49:36AM +0200, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> I originally thought of implementing this more similar to what you
> specify, but then I came across a discussion in the mailing list where
> it was NAKed adding more members to task_struct;
>
>
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 10:49:36AM +0200, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> I originally thought of implementing this more similar to what you
> specify, but then I came across a discussion in the mailing list where
> it was NAKed adding more members to task_struct;
>
>
Hi,
On ma, 2016-02-15 at 18:06 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 03:17:55PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 02:36:43PM +0200, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> > > Instead of implementing a custom locked reference counting, use lockref.
> > >
> > > Current
Hi,
On ma, 2016-02-15 at 18:06 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 03:17:55PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 02:36:43PM +0200, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> > > Instead of implementing a custom locked reference counting, use lockref.
> > >
> > > Current
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 03:17:55PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 02:36:43PM +0200, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> > Instead of implementing a custom locked reference counting, use lockref.
> >
> > Current implementation leads to a deadlock splat on Intel SKL platforms
> > when
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 03:17:55PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 02:36:43PM +0200, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> > Instead of implementing a custom locked reference counting, use lockref.
> >
> > Current implementation leads to a deadlock splat on Intel SKL platforms
> > when
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 03:17:55PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 02:36:43PM +0200, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> > Instead of implementing a custom locked reference counting, use lockref.
> >
> > Current implementation leads to a deadlock splat on Intel SKL platforms
> > when
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 03:17:55PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 02:36:43PM +0200, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> > Instead of implementing a custom locked reference counting, use lockref.
> >
> > Current implementation leads to a deadlock splat on Intel SKL platforms
> > when
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 02:36:43PM +0200, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> Instead of implementing a custom locked reference counting, use lockref.
>
> Current implementation leads to a deadlock splat on Intel SKL platforms
> when lockdep debugging is enabled.
>
> This is due to few of CPUfreq drivers
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 02:36:43PM +0200, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> Instead of implementing a custom locked reference counting, use lockref.
>
> Current implementation leads to a deadlock splat on Intel SKL platforms
> when lockdep debugging is enabled.
>
> This is due to few of CPUfreq drivers
Instead of implementing a custom locked reference counting, use lockref.
Current implementation leads to a deadlock splat on Intel SKL platforms
when lockdep debugging is enabled.
This is due to few of CPUfreq drivers (including Intel P-state) having this;
policy->rwsem is locked during driver
Instead of implementing a custom locked reference counting, use lockref.
Current implementation leads to a deadlock splat on Intel SKL platforms
when lockdep debugging is enabled.
This is due to few of CPUfreq drivers (including Intel P-state) having this;
policy->rwsem is locked during driver
32 matches
Mail list logo
