On 12/01/2016 04:34 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 10:56:57PM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
Hi Paul,
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 05:19:50PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
[ ... ]
BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at mm/page_alloc.c:3775
[ ... ]
Whew! You
On 12/01/2016 04:34 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 10:56:57PM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
Hi Paul,
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 05:19:50PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
[ ... ]
BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at mm/page_alloc.c:3775
[ ... ]
Whew! You
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 10:56:57PM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 05:19:50PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> [ ... ]
>
> > > > >
> > > > > BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at
> > > > > mm/page_alloc.c:3775
> [ ... ]
> >
> > Whew! You had
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 10:56:57PM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 05:19:50PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> [ ... ]
>
> > > > >
> > > > > BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at
> > > > > mm/page_alloc.c:3775
> [ ... ]
> >
> > Whew! You had
Hi Paul,
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 05:19:50PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
[ ... ]
> > > >
> > > > BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at
> > > > mm/page_alloc.c:3775
[ ... ]
>
> Whew! You had me going for a bit there. ;-)
Bisect results are here ... the culprit is, again,
Hi Paul,
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 05:19:50PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
[ ... ]
> > > >
> > > > BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at
> > > > mm/page_alloc.c:3775
[ ... ]
>
> Whew! You had me going for a bit there. ;-)
Bisect results are here ... the culprit is, again,
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 03:18:46PM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 01:01:52PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 11:21:59AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 04:03:33AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Nov 30, 2016
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 03:18:46PM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 01:01:52PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 11:21:59AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 04:03:33AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Nov 30, 2016
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 01:01:52PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 11:21:59AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 04:03:33AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 02:52:11AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > > On 11/29/2016 11:02
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 01:01:52PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 11:21:59AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 04:03:33AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 02:52:11AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > > On 11/29/2016 11:02
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 11:21:59AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 04:03:33AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 02:52:11AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > On 11/29/2016 11:02 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > >On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 08:32:51PM
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 11:21:59AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 04:03:33AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 02:52:11AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > On 11/29/2016 11:02 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > >On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 08:32:51PM
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 04:03:33AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 02:52:11AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On 11/29/2016 11:02 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > >On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 08:32:51PM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > >>On 11/29/2016 05:28 PM, Paul E. McKenney
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 04:03:33AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 02:52:11AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On 11/29/2016 11:02 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > >On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 08:32:51PM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > >>On 11/29/2016 05:28 PM, Paul E. McKenney
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 02:52:11AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 11/29/2016 11:02 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 08:32:51PM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> >>On 11/29/2016 05:28 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >>>On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 01:23:08PM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 02:52:11AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 11/29/2016 11:02 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 08:32:51PM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> >>On 11/29/2016 05:28 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >>>On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 01:23:08PM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On 11/29/2016 11:02 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 08:32:51PM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On 11/29/2016 05:28 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 01:23:08PM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
Hi Paul,
most of my qemu tests for sparc32 targets started to fail in
On 11/29/2016 11:02 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 08:32:51PM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On 11/29/2016 05:28 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 01:23:08PM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
Hi Paul,
most of my qemu tests for sparc32 targets started to fail in
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 08:32:51PM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 11/29/2016 05:28 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 01:23:08PM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> >>Hi Paul,
> >>
> >>most of my qemu tests for sparc32 targets started to fail in next-20161129.
> >>The problem is
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 08:32:51PM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 11/29/2016 05:28 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 01:23:08PM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> >>Hi Paul,
> >>
> >>most of my qemu tests for sparc32 targets started to fail in next-20161129.
> >>The problem is
On 11/29/2016 05:28 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 01:23:08PM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
Hi Paul,
most of my qemu tests for sparc32 targets started to fail in next-20161129.
The problem is only seen in SMP builds; non-SMP builds are fine.
Bisect points to commit
On 11/29/2016 05:28 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 01:23:08PM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
Hi Paul,
most of my qemu tests for sparc32 targets started to fail in next-20161129.
The problem is only seen in SMP builds; non-SMP builds are fine.
Bisect points to commit
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 01:23:08PM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> most of my qemu tests for sparc32 targets started to fail in next-20161129.
> The problem is only seen in SMP builds; non-SMP builds are fine.
> Bisect points to commit 2d66cccd73436 ("mm: Prevent
On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 01:23:08PM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> most of my qemu tests for sparc32 targets started to fail in next-20161129.
> The problem is only seen in SMP builds; non-SMP builds are fine.
> Bisect points to commit 2d66cccd73436 ("mm: Prevent
24 matches
Mail list logo