On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 09:55:38PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> From: Borislav Petkov
> Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 16:40:54 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH] x86, MCE: Kill CPU_POST_DEAD
>
> In conjunction with cleaning up CPU hotplug, we want to get rid of
> CPU_POST_DEAD. Kill this instance here and
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 09:55:38PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
From: Borislav Petkov b...@suse.de
Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 16:40:54 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] x86, MCE: Kill CPU_POST_DEAD
In conjunction with cleaning up CPU hotplug, we want to get rid of
CPU_POST_DEAD. Kill this instance here
On 05/23/2014 01:25 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 03:50:21PM +, Luck, Tony wrote:
So I think we can reduce it to just the one rwsem (with recursion) if we
shoot CPU_POST_DEAD in the head.
>>>
>>> Here's the first bullet. Stressing my box here with Steve's
On 05/23/2014 03:01 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 02:43:31AM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
After you move the cmci_rediscover() call, it is now in a place where we
are
no longer ignoring frozen (i.e. the old placement did the rediscover even
if the
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 02:43:31AM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> >> After you move the cmci_rediscover() call, it is now in a place where we
> >> are
> >> no longer ignoring frozen (i.e. the old placement did the rediscover even
> >> if the
> >> CPU_TASKS_FROZEN bit was set - with the new
On 05/23/2014 01:25 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 03:50:21PM +, Luck, Tony wrote:
So I think we can reduce it to just the one rwsem (with recursion) if we
shoot CPU_POST_DEAD in the head.
>>>
>>> Here's the first bullet. Stressing my box here with Steve's
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 03:50:21PM +, Luck, Tony wrote:
> >> So I think we can reduce it to just the one rwsem (with recursion) if we
> >> shoot CPU_POST_DEAD in the head.
> >
> > Here's the first bullet. Stressing my box here with Steve's hotplug
> > script seems to work fine.
> >
> > Tony,
>> So I think we can reduce it to just the one rwsem (with recursion) if we
>> shoot CPU_POST_DEAD in the head.
>
> Here's the first bullet. Stressing my box here with Steve's hotplug
> script seems to work fine.
>
> Tony, any objections?
what was this comment referring to:
/* intentionally
So I think we can reduce it to just the one rwsem (with recursion) if we
shoot CPU_POST_DEAD in the head.
Here's the first bullet. Stressing my box here with Steve's hotplug
script seems to work fine.
Tony, any objections?
what was this comment referring to:
/* intentionally ignoring
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 03:50:21PM +, Luck, Tony wrote:
So I think we can reduce it to just the one rwsem (with recursion) if we
shoot CPU_POST_DEAD in the head.
Here's the first bullet. Stressing my box here with Steve's hotplug
script seems to work fine.
Tony, any objections?
On 05/23/2014 01:25 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 03:50:21PM +, Luck, Tony wrote:
So I think we can reduce it to just the one rwsem (with recursion) if we
shoot CPU_POST_DEAD in the head.
Here's the first bullet. Stressing my box here with Steve's hotplug
script
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 02:43:31AM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
After you move the cmci_rediscover() call, it is now in a place where we
are
no longer ignoring frozen (i.e. the old placement did the rediscover even
if the
CPU_TASKS_FROZEN bit was set - with the new placement we will
On 05/23/2014 03:01 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 02:43:31AM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
After you move the cmci_rediscover() call, it is now in a place where we
are
no longer ignoring frozen (i.e. the old placement did the rediscover even
if the
CPU_TASKS_FROZEN
On 05/23/2014 01:25 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 03:50:21PM +, Luck, Tony wrote:
So I think we can reduce it to just the one rwsem (with recursion) if we
shoot CPU_POST_DEAD in the head.
Here's the first bullet. Stressing my box here with Steve's hotplug
script
14 matches
Mail list logo
