On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 04:26:48PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 04:11:48PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 04:54:14PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 11:40:43PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> > > > Thanks for the patch! I
On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 04:26:48PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 04:11:48PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 04:54:14PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 11:40:43PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> > > > Thanks for the patch! I
On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 05:54:06PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 04:26:48PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 04:11:48PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 04:54:14PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 11:40:43PM
On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 05:54:06PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 04:26:48PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 04:11:48PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 04:54:14PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 11:40:43PM
On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 04:11:48PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 04:54:14PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 11:40:43PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> > > Thanks for the patch! I applied the patch on top of "locking/ww_mutex:
> > > Add kselftests for
On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 04:11:48PM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 04:54:14PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 11:40:43PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> > > Thanks for the patch! I applied the patch on top of "locking/ww_mutex:
> > > Add kselftests for
On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 04:54:14PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 11:40:43PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> > Thanks for the patch! I applied the patch on top of "locking/ww_mutex:
> > Add kselftests for ww_mutex stress", and find no "bad unlock balance
> > detected" but this
On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 04:54:14PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 11:40:43PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> > Thanks for the patch! I applied the patch on top of "locking/ww_mutex:
> > Add kselftests for ww_mutex stress", and find no "bad unlock balance
> > detected" but this
On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 04:51:36PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 11:40:43PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
Thanks for the patch! I applied the patch on top of "locking/ww_mutex:
Add kselftests for ww_mutex stress", and find no "bad unlock balance
detected" but this warning.
On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 04:51:36PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 11:40:43PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
Thanks for the patch! I applied the patch on top of "locking/ww_mutex:
Add kselftests for ww_mutex stress", and find no "bad unlock balance
detected" but this warning.
On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 11:40:43PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> Thanks for the patch! I applied the patch on top of "locking/ww_mutex:
> Add kselftests for ww_mutex stress", and find no "bad unlock balance
> detected" but this warning. Attached is the new dmesg which is a bit
> large due to lots
On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 11:40:43PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> Thanks for the patch! I applied the patch on top of "locking/ww_mutex:
> Add kselftests for ww_mutex stress", and find no "bad unlock balance
> detected" but this warning. Attached is the new dmesg which is a bit
> large due to lots
On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 11:40:43PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> Thanks for the patch! I applied the patch on top of "locking/ww_mutex:
> Add kselftests for ww_mutex stress", and find no "bad unlock balance
> detected" but this warning. Attached is the new dmesg which is a bit
> large due to lots
On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 11:40:43PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> Thanks for the patch! I applied the patch on top of "locking/ww_mutex:
> Add kselftests for ww_mutex stress", and find no "bad unlock balance
> detected" but this warning. Attached is the new dmesg which is a bit
> large due to lots
On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 11:01:38PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
>
> In test-ww_mutex, the stress will use 4096 locks to do the test, and
> given held_lock::references only have 12 bits, so I think this is the
> reason? I made a patch to reduce the lock number of stress test, and it
> seems the
On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 11:01:38PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
>
> In test-ww_mutex, the stress will use 4096 locks to do the test, and
> given held_lock::references only have 12 bits, so I think this is the
> reason? I made a patch to reduce the lock number of stress test, and it
> seems the
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 11:35:43AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 11:28:24AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 01:14:09PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > This bisect result is not satisfactory, however the bug is very
> > >
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 11:35:43AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 11:28:24AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 01:14:09PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > This bisect result is not satisfactory, however the bug is very
> > >
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 11:28:24AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 01:14:09PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > This bisect result is not satisfactory, however the bug is very
> > reproducible and looks still alive in mainline You may
> > try the attached
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 11:28:24AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 01:14:09PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > This bisect result is not satisfactory, however the bug is very
> > reproducible and looks still alive in mainline You may
> > try the attached
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 01:14:09PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> Hello,
>
> This bisect result is not satisfactory, however the bug is very
> reproducible and looks still alive in mainline You may
> try the attached reproduce-* script to debug it.
OK, let me try that, however, see below.
>
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 01:14:09PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> Hello,
>
> This bisect result is not satisfactory, however the bug is very
> reproducible and looks still alive in mainline You may
> try the attached reproduce-* script to debug it.
OK, let me try that, however, see below.
>
22 matches
Mail list logo
