On 2018-06-27 08:36:57 [-0400], Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 09:07:30PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> >
> > This already happens:
> > - vmstat_shepherd() does get_online_cpus() and within this block it does
> > queue_delayed_work_on(). So this has to wait until
On 2018-06-27 08:36:57 [-0400], Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 09:07:30PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> >
> > This already happens:
> > - vmstat_shepherd() does get_online_cpus() and within this block it does
> > queue_delayed_work_on(). So this has to wait until
On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 09:07:30PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>
> This already happens:
> - vmstat_shepherd() does get_online_cpus() and within this block it does
> queue_delayed_work_on(). So this has to wait until cpuhotplug
> completed before it can schedule something and then
On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 09:07:30PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>
> This already happens:
> - vmstat_shepherd() does get_online_cpus() and within this block it does
> queue_delayed_work_on(). So this has to wait until cpuhotplug
> completed before it can schedule something and then
On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 17:44:36 +0200 Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
wrote:
> On 2018-04-11 21:07:29 [+0200], To Tejun Heo wrote:
> > On 2018-04-11 16:42:21 [+0200], To Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > > > So is this perhaps related to the cpu hotplug that [1] mentions? e.g.
> > > > > is
On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 17:44:36 +0200 Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
wrote:
> On 2018-04-11 21:07:29 [+0200], To Tejun Heo wrote:
> > On 2018-04-11 16:42:21 [+0200], To Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > > > So is this perhaps related to the cpu hotplug that [1] mentions? e.g.
> > > > > is
> > > > > the cpu being
ping.
any reason not to accept the revert?
On 2018-04-11 21:07:29 [+0200], To Tejun Heo wrote:
> On 2018-04-11 16:42:21 [+0200], To Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > > So is this perhaps related to the cpu hotplug that [1] mentions? e.g. is
> > > > the cpu being hotplugged cpu 1, the worker started too
ping.
any reason not to accept the revert?
On 2018-04-11 21:07:29 [+0200], To Tejun Heo wrote:
> On 2018-04-11 16:42:21 [+0200], To Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > > So is this perhaps related to the cpu hotplug that [1] mentions? e.g. is
> > > > the cpu being hotplugged cpu 1, the worker started too
On 2018-04-11 16:42:21 [+0200], To Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > So is this perhaps related to the cpu hotplug that [1] mentions? e.g. is
> > > the cpu being hotplugged cpu 1, the worker started too early before
> > > stuff can be scheduled on the CPU, so it has to run on different than
> > > designated
On 2018-04-11 16:42:21 [+0200], To Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > So is this perhaps related to the cpu hotplug that [1] mentions? e.g. is
> > > the cpu being hotplugged cpu 1, the worker started too early before
> > > stuff can be scheduled on the CPU, so it has to run on different than
> > > designated
On 2018-04-11 07:09:13 [-0700], Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 03:56:43PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > > vmstat_update() is invoked by a kworker on a specific CPU. This worker
> > > it bound to this CPU. The name of the worker was "kworker/1:1" so it
> > > should have
On 2018-04-11 07:09:13 [-0700], Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 03:56:43PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > > vmstat_update() is invoked by a kworker on a specific CPU. This worker
> > > it bound to this CPU. The name of the worker was "kworker/1:1" so it
> > > should have
Hello,
On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 03:56:43PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > vmstat_update() is invoked by a kworker on a specific CPU. This worker
> > it bound to this CPU. The name of the worker was "kworker/1:1" so it
> > should have been a worker which was bound to CPU1. A worker which can
> >
Hello,
On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 03:56:43PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > vmstat_update() is invoked by a kworker on a specific CPU. This worker
> > it bound to this CPU. The name of the worker was "kworker/1:1" so it
> > should have been a worker which was bound to CPU1. A worker which can
> >
On 04/11/2018 11:57 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> This patch reverts commit c7f26ccfb2c3 ("mm/vmstat.c: fix
> vmstat_update() preemption BUG").
> Steven saw a "using smp_processor_id() in preemptible" message and
> added a preempt_disable() section around it to keep it quiet. This is
>
On 04/11/2018 11:57 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> This patch reverts commit c7f26ccfb2c3 ("mm/vmstat.c: fix
> vmstat_update() preemption BUG").
> Steven saw a "using smp_processor_id() in preemptible" message and
> added a preempt_disable() section around it to keep it quiet. This is
>
This patch reverts commit c7f26ccfb2c3 ("mm/vmstat.c: fix
vmstat_update() preemption BUG").
Steven saw a "using smp_processor_id() in preemptible" message and
added a preempt_disable() section around it to keep it quiet. This is
not the right thing to do it does not fix the real problem.
This patch reverts commit c7f26ccfb2c3 ("mm/vmstat.c: fix
vmstat_update() preemption BUG").
Steven saw a "using smp_processor_id() in preemptible" message and
added a preempt_disable() section around it to keep it quiet. This is
not the right thing to do it does not fix the real problem.
18 matches
Mail list logo