[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140423081950.778e1a3a@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 08:19:50 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
John Kacur <jkacur@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] 3.14-rt1
On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 12:37:05 +0200
Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-04-11 at 20:57 +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>
> > This -RT series didn't crashed within ~4h testing on my ARM and
> > x86-32.
> > x86-64 crashed after I started hackbench. I figured out that the crash
> > does not happen with lazy-preempt disabled. Therefore the last but one
> > patch in the queue disables lazy preempt on x86-64. With this change the
> > test box survived ~2h without a crash. I look at this later but it looks
> > good now.
>
> I think the below fixes it (in a more or less minimalist way), but it's
> not very pretty. Methinks it would be prettier to either clone the x86
> percpu + fold logic, or neutralize that optimization completely when
> PREEMPT_LAZY is enabled.
>
> x86_32 bit is completely untested, x86_64 hasn't exploded.. yet :)
>
This patch makes sense to me.
Acked-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
-- Steve
--
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