On Sat, Oct 31, 2020 at 07:38:52PM -0400, Qian Cai wrote:
> > > This is avoided by moving the call to rcu_cpu_starting up near the
> > > beginning of the smp_init_secondary() function. Note that the
> > > raw_smp_processor_id() is required in order to avoid calling into
> > > lockdep before RCU
On Sat, 2020-10-31 at 19:37 +0100, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 02:27:42PM -0400, Qian Cai wrote:
> > The call to rcu_cpu_starting() in smp_init_secondary() is not early
> > enough in the CPU-hotplug onlining process, which results in lockdep
> > splats as follows:
> >
> >
On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 02:27:42PM -0400, Qian Cai wrote:
> The call to rcu_cpu_starting() in smp_init_secondary() is not early
> enough in the CPU-hotplug onlining process, which results in lockdep
> splats as follows:
>
> WARNING: suspicious RCU usage
> -
>
The call to rcu_cpu_starting() in smp_init_secondary() is not early
enough in the CPU-hotplug onlining process, which results in lockdep
splats as follows:
WARNING: suspicious RCU usage
-
kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3497 RCU-list traversed in non-reader section!!
On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 02:27:42PM -0400, Qian Cai wrote:
> The call to rcu_cpu_starting() in smp_init_secondary() is not early
> enough in the CPU-hotplug onlining process, which results in lockdep
> splats as follows:
>
> WARNING: suspicious RCU usage
> -
>
5 matches
Mail list logo