[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1495980680.29205.68.camel@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 10:11:20 -0400
From: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
kernel test robot <xiaolong.ye@...el.com>,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>, Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, LKP <lkp@...org>
Subject: Re: [x86/mm] e2a7dcce31: kernel_BUG_at_arch/x86/mm/tlb.c
On Sat, 2017-05-27 at 09:00 -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 6:31 AM, kernel test robot
> <xiaolong.ye@...el.com> wrote:
> >
> > FYI, we noticed the following commit:
> >
> > commit: e2a7dcce31f10bd7471b4245a6d1f2de344e7adf ("x86/mm: Rework
> > lazy TLB to track the actual loaded mm")
> > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/luto/linux.git
> > x86/tlbflush_cleanup
>
> Ugh, there's an unpleasant interaction between this patch and
> intel_idle. I suspect that the intel_idle code in question is either
> wrong or pointless,
It would be pointless if my "make lazy TLB mode even lazier"
patch from last year had been applied.
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9307541/
I guess I'll go re-send that and investigate the intel_idle
code in addition to that.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists