On Friday, July 28, 2017 03:09:25 PM Alex Shi wrote:
> This patch replace a rwlock and raw notifier by atomic notifier which
> protected by spin_lock and rcu.
>
> The first to reason to have this replace is due to a 'scheduling while
> atomic' bug of RT kernel on arm/arm64 platform. On
On Friday, July 28, 2017 03:09:25 PM Alex Shi wrote:
> This patch replace a rwlock and raw notifier by atomic notifier which
> protected by spin_lock and rcu.
>
> The first to reason to have this replace is due to a 'scheduling while
> atomic' bug of RT kernel on arm/arm64 platform. On
This patch replace a rwlock and raw notifier by atomic notifier which
protected by spin_lock and rcu.
The first to reason to have this replace is due to a 'scheduling while
atomic' bug of RT kernel on arm/arm64 platform. On arm/arm64, rwlock
cpu_pm_notifier_lock in cpu_pm cause a potential
This patch replace a rwlock and raw notifier by atomic notifier which
protected by spin_lock and rcu.
The first to reason to have this replace is due to a 'scheduling while
atomic' bug of RT kernel on arm/arm64 platform. On arm/arm64, rwlock
cpu_pm_notifier_lock in cpu_pm cause a potential
On 07/13/2017 05:30 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>
>> This patch passed Fengguang's 0day testing.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Alex Shi
>> To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
>> Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
>> Cc: Thomas Gleixner
>> Cc:
On 07/13/2017 05:30 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>
>> This patch passed Fengguang's 0day testing.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Alex Shi
>> To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
>> Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
>> Cc: Thomas Gleixner
>> Cc: Anders Roxell
>> Cc: Daniel Lezcano
>> Cc: linux-rt-users
>>
On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 08:48:18 AM Alex Shi wrote:
> This patch replace a rwlock and raw notifier by atomic notifier which
> protected by spin_lock and rcu.
>
> The first to reason to have this replace is due to a 'scheduling while
> atomic' bug of RT kernel on arm/arm64 platform. On
On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 08:48:18 AM Alex Shi wrote:
> This patch replace a rwlock and raw notifier by atomic notifier which
> protected by spin_lock and rcu.
>
> The first to reason to have this replace is due to a 'scheduling while
> atomic' bug of RT kernel on arm/arm64 platform. On
On 07/11/2017 11:16 PM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2017-07-11 17:01:09 [+0200], Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> As far as RT is concerned, I am taking this for the next v4.11 release.
>>> I would appreciate if upstream would apply this as well.
>>> Rafael do you feel responsible for
On 07/11/2017 11:16 PM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2017-07-11 17:01:09 [+0200], Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> As far as RT is concerned, I am taking this for the next v4.11 release.
>>> I would appreciate if upstream would apply this as well.
>>> Rafael do you feel responsible for
This patch replace a rwlock and raw notifier by atomic notifier which
protected by spin_lock and rcu.
The first to reason to have this replace is due to a 'scheduling while
atomic' bug of RT kernel on arm/arm64 platform. On arm/arm64, rwlock
cpu_pm_notifier_lock in cpu_pm cause a potential
This patch replace a rwlock and raw notifier by atomic notifier which
protected by spin_lock and rcu.
The first to reason to have this replace is due to a 'scheduling while
atomic' bug of RT kernel on arm/arm64 platform. On arm/arm64, rwlock
cpu_pm_notifier_lock in cpu_pm cause a potential
On 2017-07-11 17:01:09 [+0200], Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > As far as RT is concerned, I am taking this for the next v4.11 release.
> > I would appreciate if upstream would apply this as well.
> > Rafael do you feel responsible for this?
>
> I can apply this if no one else wants to. :-)
prosze.
On 2017-07-11 17:01:09 [+0200], Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > As far as RT is concerned, I am taking this for the next v4.11 release.
> > I would appreciate if upstream would apply this as well.
> > Rafael do you feel responsible for this?
>
> I can apply this if no one else wants to. :-)
prosze.
On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 05:06:35 PM Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2017-07-11 22:42:04 [+0800], Alex Shi wrote:
> > It is a serious bug: add a waiting lock in idle and cause boot failure
> > in arm/arm64 RT.
> >
> > Any more comments for this change?
>
> As far as RT is concerned, I am
On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 05:06:35 PM Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2017-07-11 22:42:04 [+0800], Alex Shi wrote:
> > It is a serious bug: add a waiting lock in idle and cause boot failure
> > in arm/arm64 RT.
> >
> > Any more comments for this change?
>
> As far as RT is concerned, I am
On 2017-07-11 22:42:04 [+0800], Alex Shi wrote:
> It is a serious bug: add a waiting lock in idle and cause boot failure
> in arm/arm64 RT.
>
> Any more comments for this change?
As far as RT is concerned, I am taking this for the next v4.11 release.
I would appreciate if upstream would apply
On 2017-07-11 22:42:04 [+0800], Alex Shi wrote:
> It is a serious bug: add a waiting lock in idle and cause boot failure
> in arm/arm64 RT.
>
> Any more comments for this change?
As far as RT is concerned, I am taking this for the next v4.11 release.
I would appreciate if upstream would apply
It is a serious bug: add a waiting lock in idle and cause boot failure
in arm/arm64 RT.
Any more comments for this change?
On 07/06/2017 04:47 PM, Alex Shi wrote:
> This patch replace a rwlock and raw notifier by atomic notifier which
> protected by spin_lock and rcu.
>
> The first to reason to
It is a serious bug: add a waiting lock in idle and cause boot failure
in arm/arm64 RT.
Any more comments for this change?
On 07/06/2017 04:47 PM, Alex Shi wrote:
> This patch replace a rwlock and raw notifier by atomic notifier which
> protected by spin_lock and rcu.
>
> The first to reason to
On 07/07/2017 06:25 PM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2017-07-06 16:47:46 [+0800], Alex Shi wrote:
>> This patch replace a rwlock and raw notifier by atomic notifier which
> + is
>> protected by spin_lock and rcu.
> …
>> Sebastian suggested using atomic_notifier instead of rwlock, which
On 07/07/2017 06:25 PM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2017-07-06 16:47:46 [+0800], Alex Shi wrote:
>> This patch replace a rwlock and raw notifier by atomic notifier which
> + is
>> protected by spin_lock and rcu.
> …
>> Sebastian suggested using atomic_notifier instead of rwlock, which
On 2017-07-06 16:47:46 [+0800], Alex Shi wrote:
> This patch replace a rwlock and raw notifier by atomic notifier which
+ is
> protected by spin_lock and rcu.
…
> Sebastian suggested using atomic_notifier instead of rwlock, which is not
> only removing the sleeping in idle, but also getting
On 2017-07-06 16:47:46 [+0800], Alex Shi wrote:
> This patch replace a rwlock and raw notifier by atomic notifier which
+ is
> protected by spin_lock and rcu.
…
> Sebastian suggested using atomic_notifier instead of rwlock, which is not
> only removing the sleeping in idle, but also getting
This patch replace a rwlock and raw notifier by atomic notifier which
protected by spin_lock and rcu.
The first to reason to have this replace is due to a 'scheduling while
atomic' bug of RT kernel on arm/arm64 platform. On arm/arm64, rwlock
cpu_pm_notifier_lock in cpu_pm cause a potential
This patch replace a rwlock and raw notifier by atomic notifier which
protected by spin_lock and rcu.
The first to reason to have this replace is due to a 'scheduling while
atomic' bug of RT kernel on arm/arm64 platform. On arm/arm64, rwlock
cpu_pm_notifier_lock in cpu_pm cause a potential
26 matches
Mail list logo