On Fri 2023-01-27 08:57:40, Seth Forshee wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 12:19:03PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > Could you please provide some more details about the test system?
> > Is there anything important to make it reproducible?
> >
> > The following aspects come to my mind. It might
On Fri 2023-01-27 11:37:02, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 08:43:55PM -0800, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 03:12:35PM -0600, Seth Forshee (DigitalOcean) wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 06:03:16PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > > > On Fri 2023-01-20
On Thu 2023-01-26 15:12:35, Seth Forshee (DigitalOcean) wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 06:03:16PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > On Fri 2023-01-20 16:12:20, Seth Forshee (DigitalOcean) wrote:
> > > We've fairly regularaly seen liveptches which cannot transition within
> > > kpatch's
> > >
On Fri 2023-01-20 16:12:20, Seth Forshee (DigitalOcean) wrote:
> We've fairly regularaly seen liveptches which cannot transition within
> kpatch's
> timeout period due to busy vhost worker kthreads.
I have missed this detail. Miroslav told me that we have solved
something similar some time ago,
On Thu 2023-01-26 12:16:36, Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Wed 2023-01-25 10:57:30, Seth Forshee wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 12:34:26PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > > On Tue 2023-01-24 11:21:39, Seth Forshee wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 03:17:43PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > > > > On
On Wed 2023-01-25 10:57:30, Seth Forshee wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 12:34:26PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > On Tue 2023-01-24 11:21:39, Seth Forshee wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 03:17:43PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > > > On Fri 2023-01-20 16:12:22, Seth Forshee (DigitalOcean)
On Tue 2023-01-24 11:21:39, Seth Forshee wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 03:17:43PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > On Fri 2023-01-20 16:12:22, Seth Forshee (DigitalOcean) wrote:
> > > Livepatch relies on stack checking of sleeping tasks to switch kthreads,
> > > so a busy kthread can block a
On Fri 2023-01-20 16:12:22, Seth Forshee (DigitalOcean) wrote:
> Livepatch relies on stack checking of sleeping tasks to switch kthreads,
> so a busy kthread can block a livepatch transition indefinitely. We've
> seen this happen fairly often with busy vhost kthreads.
To be precise, it would be
On Thu 2022-06-09 12:02:04, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 09, 2022 at 11:16:46AM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > On Wed 2022-06-08 16:27:47, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > The problem, per commit fc98c3c8c9dc ("printk: use rcuidle console
> > > tracepoint"), was printk usage from the cpuidle path
On Thu 2022-06-09 20:30:58, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> My emails are getting rejected... Let me try web-interface
Bad day for mail sending. I have problems as well ;-)
> Kudos to Petr for the questions and thanks to PeterZ for the answers.
>
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 7:02 PM Peter Zijlstra
Sending again. The previous attempt was rejected by several
recipients. It was caused by a mail server changes on my side.
I am sorry for spamming those who got the 1st mail already.
On Wed 2022-06-08 16:27:47, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> The problem, per commit fc98c3c8c9dc ("printk: use rcuidle
On Wed 2022-06-08 16:27:47, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> The problem, per commit fc98c3c8c9dc ("printk: use rcuidle console
> tracepoint"), was printk usage from the cpuidle path where RCU was
> already disabled.
>
> Per the patches earlier in this series, this is no longer the case.
My understanding
On Tue 2020-11-17 09:33:25, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2020 12:23:41 +0200
> Leon Romanovsky wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Approximately two weeks ago, our regression team started to experience those
> > netconsole splats. The tested code is Linus's master (-rc4) + netdev
> > net-next
>
13 matches
Mail list logo
