On (03/02/16 11:30), Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Thu 2016-02-25 14:10:05, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE=y
> > # CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY is not set
> > # CONFIG_PREEMPT is not set
> > CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT=y
>
> I was curious why your patch actually did not help to avoid the
>
On (03/02/16 11:30), Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Thu 2016-02-25 14:10:05, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE=y
> > # CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY is not set
> > # CONFIG_PREEMPT is not set
> > CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT=y
>
> I was curious why your patch actually did not help to avoid the
>
On Thu 2016-02-25 14:10:05, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE=y
> # CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY is not set
> # CONFIG_PREEMPT is not set
> CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT=y
I was curious why your patch actually did not help to avoid the
softlockup. The infinite printk loop was called in a safe
On Thu 2016-02-25 14:10:05, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE=y
> # CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY is not set
> # CONFIG_PREEMPT is not set
> CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT=y
I was curious why your patch actually did not help to avoid the
softlockup. The infinite printk loop was called in a safe
Hello,
On (02/25/16 00:12), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
[..]
> > > I want to be sure that the patch in printk() did not introduce
> > > a deadlock that is visible only under a high printk load.
>
> I'll do more tests, certainly.
No behavioral change between linux-next and linux-next modulo printk
Hello,
On (02/25/16 00:12), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
[..]
> > > I want to be sure that the patch in printk() did not introduce
> > > a deadlock that is visible only under a high printk load.
>
> I'll do more tests, certainly.
No behavioral change between linux-next and linux-next modulo printk
On (02/24/16 21:50), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (02/24/16 12:46), Petr Mladek wrote:
> [..]
> > > and you get the NMI watchdog softlockup because you have a whole bunch of
> > >
> > >"of_overlay_destroy: Could not find overlay #6"
> > >"### dt-test ###
On (02/24/16 21:50), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (02/24/16 12:46), Petr Mladek wrote:
> [..]
> > > and you get the NMI watchdog softlockup because you have a whole bunch of
> > >
> > >"of_overlay_destroy: Could not find overlay #6"
> > >"### dt-test ###
Hello,
On (02/24/16 12:46), Petr Mladek wrote:
[..]
> > and you get the NMI watchdog softlockup because you have a whole bunch of
> >
> >"of_overlay_destroy: Could not find overlay #6"
> >"### dt-test ### of_unittest_destroy_tracked_overlays: overlay destroy
> > failed for #6"
> >
> >
Hello,
On (02/24/16 12:46), Petr Mladek wrote:
[..]
> > and you get the NMI watchdog softlockup because you have a whole bunch of
> >
> >"of_overlay_destroy: Could not find overlay #6"
> >"### dt-test ### of_unittest_destroy_tracked_overlays: overlay destroy
> > failed for #6"
> >
> >
On Wed 2016-02-24 10:19:41, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Cc Rob, Frank, Grant
>
> On (02/24/16 00:53), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> [..]
> > 284 [0.00] per task-struct memory footprint: 2112 bytes
> > 285 [0.00] per task-struct memory footprint: 2112 bytes
> >
On Wed 2016-02-24 10:19:41, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Cc Rob, Frank, Grant
>
> On (02/24/16 00:53), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> [..]
> > 284 [0.00] per task-struct memory footprint: 2112 bytes
> > 285 [0.00] per task-struct memory footprint: 2112 bytes
> >
Hello,
Cc Rob, Frank, Grant
On (02/24/16 00:53), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
[..]
> 284 [0.00] per task-struct memory footprint: 2112 bytes
> 285 [0.00] per task-struct memory footprint: 2112 bytes
> 286 [0.00]
> 287 [0.00]
Hello,
Cc Rob, Frank, Grant
On (02/24/16 00:53), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
[..]
> 284 [0.00] per task-struct memory footprint: 2112 bytes
> 285 [0.00] per task-struct memory footprint: 2112 bytes
> 286 [0.00]
> 287 [0.00]
On Tue 2016-02-23 08:55:03, kernel test robot wrote:
> FYI, we noticed the below changes on
>
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git master
> commit 34578dc67f38c02ccbe696e4099967884caa8e15 ("printk: set may_schedule
> for some of console_trylock() callers")
>
>
On Tue 2016-02-23 08:55:03, kernel test robot wrote:
> FYI, we noticed the below changes on
>
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git master
> commit 34578dc67f38c02ccbe696e4099967884caa8e15 ("printk: set may_schedule
> for some of console_trylock() callers")
>
>
On (02/23/16 22:15), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (02/23/16 08:55), kernel test robot wrote:
> > [ 33.497678] ### dt-test ### of_unittest_destroy_tracked_overlays:
> > overlay destroy failed for #6
> > [ 33.497693] NMI watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#0 stuck for 23s!
> > [swapper:1]
> > [
On (02/23/16 22:15), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (02/23/16 08:55), kernel test robot wrote:
> > [ 33.497678] ### dt-test ### of_unittest_destroy_tracked_overlays:
> > overlay destroy failed for #6
> > [ 33.497693] NMI watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#0 stuck for 23s!
> > [swapper:1]
> > [
FYI, we noticed the below changes on
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git master
commit 34578dc67f38c02ccbe696e4099967884caa8e15 ("printk: set may_schedule for
some of console_trylock() callers")
FYI, we noticed the below changes on
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git master
commit 34578dc67f38c02ccbe696e4099967884caa8e15 ("printk: set may_schedule for
some of console_trylock() callers")
20 matches
Mail list logo
