[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120702145927.GD2508@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2012 07:59:27 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: rcu: BUG: spinlock recursion on CPU#3, trinity-child19/5970
On Mon, Jul 02, 2012 at 04:36:53PM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-07-02 at 07:22 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > OK, so it looks like the context-switch-time call into preemptible RCU
> > > needs to be outside of the runqueue-lock critical section. One way
> > > to do this is be reverting 616c310e (Move PREEMPT_RCU preemption to
> > > switch_to() invocation). Sasha, could you please try this out?
> >
> > Hmmmm... Here is a patch for this reversion on top of -rcu with
> > conflicts resolved.
>
> It looks like how I've resolved it.
Good show!!!
> Just for clarity, the only rcu related patch I have on top of -next is
> this reversal one. I've dropped anything we tested before.
>
> Looks like its running fine for a bit now (~10 min). I'll ping if
> anything changes, but on the other tests it has usually failed at this
> point.
If testing goes well (both yours and mine), I will be submitting this
as urgent, since it is a 3.5 regression. If they don't take it, I will
queue it for 3.6.
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