> I am not sure how to fix this but it sounds like this_cpu_ptr should
> offer the same preempt expectations as other this_cpu_* functions.
One returns a pointer that may not be useful if the context is switched
and the other completes a operationo on an opject.
--
To unsubscribe from this
I am not sure how to fix this but it sounds like this_cpu_ptr should
offer the same preempt expectations as other this_cpu_* functions.
One returns a pointer that may not be useful if the context is switched
and the other completes a operationo on an opject.
--
To unsubscribe from this list:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 16:14:02 +1100 Stephen Rothwell
wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> On Wed, 21 Jan 2015 19:34:11 -0800 Andrew Morton
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 10:51:23 +0900 Joonsoo Kim
> > wrote:
> >
> > > > The most recent -mmotm was a bit of a trainwreck. I'm scrambling to
> > > >
Hi Andrew,
On Wed, 21 Jan 2015 19:34:11 -0800 Andrew Morton
wrote:
>
> On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 10:51:23 +0900 Joonsoo Kim wrote:
>
> > > The most recent -mmotm was a bit of a trainwreck. I'm scrambling to
> > > get the holes plugged so I can get another mmotm out today.
> >
> > Another mmotm
On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 10:51:23 +0900 Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > The most recent -mmotm was a bit of a trainwreck. I'm scrambling to
> > get the holes plugged so I can get another mmotm out today.
>
> Another mmotm will fix many issues from me. :/
I hit a wont-boot-cant-find-init in linux-next so I
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 02:21:07PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jan 2015 15:11:38 +0100 Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> > On Wed 21-01-15 15:06:03, Krzysztof Koz__owski wrote:
> > [...]
> > > Same here :) [1] . So actually only ARM seems affected (both armv7 and
> > > armv8) because it is
On Wed, 21 Jan 2015 15:11:38 +0100 Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 21-01-15 15:06:03, Krzysztof Koz__owski wrote:
> [...]
> > Same here :) [1] . So actually only ARM seems affected (both armv7 and
> > armv8) because it is the only one which uses smp_processor_id() in
> > my_cpu_offset.
>
> This
On Wed 21-01-15 15:06:03, Krzysztof Kozłowski wrote:
[...]
> Same here :) [1] . So actually only ARM seems affected (both armv7 and
> armv8) because it is the only one which uses smp_processor_id() in
> my_cpu_offset.
This was on x86_64 with CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT so it is not only ARM
specific.
2015-01-21 14:23 GMT+01:00 Michal Hocko :
> Hi,
> I am getting tons of splats like this:
> [ 187.593291] BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible [] code:
> kworker/u4:1/24
> [ 187.593293] caller is debug_smp_processor_id+0x17/0x19
> [ 187.599127] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC
Hi,
I am getting tons of splats like this:
[ 187.593291] BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible [] code:
kworker/u4:1/24
[ 187.593293] caller is debug_smp_processor_id+0x17/0x19
[ 187.599127] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS
On Wed, 21 Jan 2015 15:11:38 +0100 Michal Hocko mho...@suse.cz wrote:
On Wed 21-01-15 15:06:03, Krzysztof Koz__owski wrote:
[...]
Same here :) [1] . So actually only ARM seems affected (both armv7 and
armv8) because it is the only one which uses smp_processor_id() in
my_cpu_offset.
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 02:21:07PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jan 2015 15:11:38 +0100 Michal Hocko mho...@suse.cz wrote:
On Wed 21-01-15 15:06:03, Krzysztof Koz__owski wrote:
[...]
Same here :) [1] . So actually only ARM seems affected (both armv7 and
armv8) because it is
Hi Andrew,
On Wed, 21 Jan 2015 19:34:11 -0800 Andrew Morton a...@linux-foundation.org
wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 10:51:23 +0900 Joonsoo Kim iamjoonsoo@lge.com wrote:
The most recent -mmotm was a bit of a trainwreck. I'm scrambling to
get the holes plugged so I can get another
On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 16:14:02 +1100 Stephen Rothwell s...@canb.auug.org.au
wrote:
Hi Andrew,
On Wed, 21 Jan 2015 19:34:11 -0800 Andrew Morton a...@linux-foundation.org
wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 10:51:23 +0900 Joonsoo Kim iamjoonsoo@lge.com
wrote:
The most recent -mmotm
On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 10:51:23 +0900 Joonsoo Kim iamjoonsoo@lge.com wrote:
The most recent -mmotm was a bit of a trainwreck. I'm scrambling to
get the holes plugged so I can get another mmotm out today.
Another mmotm will fix many issues from me. :/
I hit a wont-boot-cant-find-init in
Hi,
I am getting tons of splats like this:
[ 187.593291] BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible [] code:
kworker/u4:1/24
[ 187.593293] caller is debug_smp_processor_id+0x17/0x19
[ 187.599127] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS
On Wed 21-01-15 15:06:03, Krzysztof Kozłowski wrote:
[...]
Same here :) [1] . So actually only ARM seems affected (both armv7 and
armv8) because it is the only one which uses smp_processor_id() in
my_cpu_offset.
This was on x86_64 with CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT so it is not only ARM
specific.
2015-01-21 14:23 GMT+01:00 Michal Hocko mho...@suse.cz:
Hi,
I am getting tons of splats like this:
[ 187.593291] BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible [] code:
kworker/u4:1/24
[ 187.593293] caller is debug_smp_processor_id+0x17/0x19
[ 187.599127] Hardware name: QEMU Standard
18 matches
Mail list logo
