On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 04:16:22PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2020-07-15 15:38:08 [+0200], Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > > As of -rc3 it should complain about printk() which is why it is still
> > > disabled by default.
> > >
> > Have you tried to trigger a "complain" you are
On 2020-07-15 15:38:08 [+0200], Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > As of -rc3 it should complain about printk() which is why it is still
> > disabled by default.
> >
> Have you tried to trigger a "complain" you are talking about?
No, but I is wrong because a raw_spinlock_t is acquired followed by a
On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 06:45:43PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2020-06-24 13:12:12 [-0700], paul...@kernel.org wrote:
> > From: "Joel Fernandes (Google)"
> >
> > To keep the kfree_rcu() code working in purely atomic sections on RT,
> > such as non-threaded IRQ handlers and raw
On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 02:45:31PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 07:34:41PM +0200, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 06, 2020 at 02:06:45PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 10:19:08PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > > > On
On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 07:34:41PM +0200, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 06, 2020 at 02:06:45PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 10:19:08PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > > On 2020-07-02 09:48:26 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jul 02,
On Mon, Jul 06, 2020 at 02:06:45PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 10:19:08PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > On 2020-07-02 09:48:26 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 04:12:16PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > > > On
On 2020-07-06 16:29:49 [-0400], Joel Fernandes wrote:
> Anyway, I think as we discussed on IRC, your proposal will work for both
> kernels while allowing us to keep the internal lock as raw.
Why can't we use the migrate_disable() and spinlock_t?
> thanks,
>
> - Joel
Sebastian
On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 10:19:08PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2020-07-02 09:48:26 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 04:12:16PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > > On 2020-06-30 11:35:34 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > This is not
On Mon, Jul 06, 2020 at 09:55:57PM +0200, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
[...]
> > > Another way of fixing it is just dropping the lock letting the page
> > > allocator to do an allocation without our "upper/local" lock. I did a
> > > proposal like that once upon a time, so maybe it is a time to
On Mon, Jul 06, 2020 at 03:42:32PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 09:45:06PM +0200, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 04:12:16PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > > On 2020-06-30 11:35:34 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > This is not
On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 09:45:06PM +0200, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 04:12:16PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > On 2020-06-30 11:35:34 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > This is not going to work together with the "wait context validator"
> > > >
On 2020-07-02 09:48:26 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 04:12:16PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > On 2020-06-30 11:35:34 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > This is not going to work together with the "wait context validator"
> > > >
On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 04:12:16PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2020-06-30 11:35:34 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > This is not going to work together with the "wait context validator"
> > > (CONFIG_PROVE_RAW_LOCK_NESTING). As of -rc3 it should complain about
> > > printk()
On Thu, Jul 02, 2020 at 04:12:16PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2020-06-30 11:35:34 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > This is not going to work together with the "wait context validator"
> > > (CONFIG_PROVE_RAW_LOCK_NESTING). As of -rc3 it should complain about
> > > printk()
On 2020-06-30 11:35:34 [-0700], Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > This is not going to work together with the "wait context validator"
> > (CONFIG_PROVE_RAW_LOCK_NESTING). As of -rc3 it should complain about
> > printk() which is why it is still disabled by default.
>
> Fixing that should be
On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 06:45:43PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2020-06-24 13:12:12 [-0700], paul...@kernel.org wrote:
> > From: "Joel Fernandes (Google)"
> >
> > To keep the kfree_rcu() code working in purely atomic sections on RT,
> > such as non-threaded IRQ handlers and raw
On 2020-06-24 13:12:12 [-0700], paul...@kernel.org wrote:
> From: "Joel Fernandes (Google)"
>
> To keep the kfree_rcu() code working in purely atomic sections on RT,
> such as non-threaded IRQ handlers and raw spinlock sections, avoid
> calling into the page allocator which uses sleeping locks
From: "Joel Fernandes (Google)"
To keep the kfree_rcu() code working in purely atomic sections on RT,
such as non-threaded IRQ handlers and raw spinlock sections, avoid
calling into the page allocator which uses sleeping locks on RT.
In fact, even if the caller is preemptible, the kfree_rcu()
18 matches
Mail list logo
