[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150205184537.GJ5370@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 10:45:37 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, sedat.dilek@...il.com,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
linux-next <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Kristen Carlson Accardi <kristen@...ux.intel.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 4
On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 10:35:33AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 02/05/2015 10:34 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >> > Did I actually need to be
> >> > onlining/offlining CPUs to hit the splat that Sedat was reporting?
> > Yep, you do need to offline at least one CPU to hit that splat.
>
> Heh, do we need a debugging mode that will randomly offline/online CPUs? :)
For that, kernel/rcu/rcutorture.c and kernel/locking/locktorture.c
are your friends. ;-)
The problem is that I only run RCU-relevant combinations of Kconfigs,
which means that I missed the ones that Sedat used to find this problem.
So I guess it is a good thing that others run -next testing.
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