* Sergey Senozhatsky [170216 08:33]:
> On (02/16/17 07:10), Tony Lindgren wrote:
> [..]
> > > > > [..]
> > > > > > Below is another issue I noticed caused by commit f975237b7682 that
> > > > > > I noticed during booting.
> > > > >
> > > > > do you mean that with f975237b7682 you _always_ see that
On (02/16/17 07:10), Tony Lindgren wrote:
[..]
> > > > [..]
> > > > > Below is another issue I noticed caused by commit f975237b7682 that
> > > > > I noticed during booting.
> > > >
> > > > do you mean that with f975237b7682 you _always_ see that illegal RCU
> > > > usage warning?
> > >
> > > Yea
* Sergey Senozhatsky [170215 20:26]:
> On (02/15/17 20:03), Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > * Sergey Senozhatsky [170215 17:32]:
> > > On (02/15/17 10:01), Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > > [..]
> > > > Below is another issue I noticed caused by commit f975237b7682 that
> > > > I noticed during booting.
> > >
On (02/15/17 20:03), Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Sergey Senozhatsky [170215 17:32]:
> > On (02/15/17 10:01), Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > [..]
> > > Below is another issue I noticed caused by commit f975237b7682 that
> > > I noticed during booting.
> >
> > do you mean that with f975237b7682 you _always_
* Sergey Senozhatsky [170215 17:32]:
> On (02/15/17 10:01), Tony Lindgren wrote:
> [..]
> > Below is another issue I noticed caused by commit f975237b7682 that
> > I noticed during booting.
>
> do you mean that with f975237b7682 you _always_ see that illegal RCU
> usage warning?
Yeah on every bo
On (02/15/17 10:01), Tony Lindgren wrote:
[..]
> Below is another issue I noticed caused by commit f975237b7682 that
> I noticed during booting.
do you mean that with f975237b7682 you _always_ see that illegal RCU
usage warning?
> 8< --
> [2.581939] hw-breakpoint: Fai
Hi,
* Sergey Senozhatsky [170214 08:03]:
> Hello,
>
> Cc Rafael, just in case
Found another issue on booting ARM devices, so adding Russell too.
> On (02/13/17 10:59), Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > Looks like commit f975237b7682 ("printk: use printk_safe buffers in
> > printk") causes "possible cir
On (02/14/17 19:29), Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 01:56:45AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > that crossed my mind, but I kinda assumed that we do printk() from
> > under tk_core using sched fair, and rt_runtime_lock is from sched rt.
>
> That's all true; lockdep doesn't car
On (02/14/17 09:03), Tony Lindgren wrote:
[..]
> > Do not call printk() from tk_debug_account_sleep_time(), because
> > tk_debug_account_sleep_time() is called under tk_core seq lock.
> > It's not safe to call printk() under tk_core, because console_sem
> > invokes scheduled (via wake_up_process()-
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 01:56:45AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> that crossed my mind, but I kinda assumed that we do printk() from
> under tk_core using sched fair, and rt_runtime_lock is from sched rt.
That's all true; lockdep doesn't care :-) All it knows is that at some
point those locks
* Sergey Senozhatsky [170214 08:58]:
> On (02/14/17 17:18), Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 01:01:40AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > >
> > > but I'm a bit confused by rt_b->rt_runtime_lock in this unsafe lock
> > > scenario (so it's not ABBA, but ABAD)
> > >
> > > > lo
On (02/14/17 17:18), Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 01:01:40AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> >
> > but I'm a bit confused by rt_b->rt_runtime_lock in this unsafe lock
> > scenario (so it's not ABBA, but ABAD)
> >
> > > lock(hrtimer_bases.lock);
> > >
* Sergey Senozhatsky [170214 08:03]:
> Hello,
>
> Cc Rafael, just in case
>
> On (02/13/17 10:59), Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > Looks like commit f975237b7682 ("printk: use printk_safe buffers in
> > printk") causes "possible circular locking dependency detected " for
> > me on the first suspend.
>
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 01:01:40AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
>
> but I'm a bit confused by rt_b->rt_runtime_lock in this unsafe lock
> scenario (so it's not ABBA, but ABAD)
>
> > lock(hrtimer_bases.lock);
> >lock(&rt_b->rt_runtime_lock);
> >
Hello,
Cc Rafael, just in case
On (02/13/17 10:59), Tony Lindgren wrote:
> Looks like commit f975237b7682 ("printk: use printk_safe buffers in
> printk") causes "possible circular locking dependency detected " for
> me on the first suspend.
thanks for the report.
> Reverting the following four
Hi all,
Looks like commit f975237b7682 ("printk: use printk_safe buffers in
printk") causes "possible circular locking dependency detected " for
me on the first suspend.
Reverting the following four patches in next makes it go away:
d9c23523ed98 ("printk: drop call_console_drivers() unused param
16 matches
Mail list logo
