[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110525001608.GA21060@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 17:16:08 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com,
tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...e.hu
Subject: Re: [tip:core/rcu] Revert "rcu: Decrease memory-barrier usage
based on semi-formal proof"
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 05:05:30PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 02:23:45PM -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> > On 05/23/2011 06:35 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
[ . . . ]
> > after:
> > commit bcd6e68330f893a81b3519ab3c5fc2bebbc9988c
> > Author: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > Date: Tue Sep 7 10:38:22 2010 -0700
> >
> > rcu: Decrease memory-barrier usage based on semi-formal proof
> > ...
> >
> > got:
> >
> > [ 32.447936] cpu_dev_init done
> > [ 111.027066] memory_dev_init done
>
> So there is something nasty in this patch.
>
> Not seeing it immediately, but it does give me some focus for both
> code inspection and possible diagnostic patches.
Actually, I already do have some debugfs stuff that should help me spot
the problem.
So could you please build both with and without this commit enabling
CONFIG_TRACE_RCU and send me the contents of the debugfs files rcu/rcuhier
and rcu/rcudata in both cases?
This will show me the results of the full boot path. If this turns out to
drown out the differences, I will create a more focused diagnostic patch.
Thanx, Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists