[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20190621121630.GE26519@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2019 05:16:30 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com,
frederic@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH] time/tick-broadcast: Fix tick_broadcast_offline()
lockdep complaint
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 12:55:03PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 03:13:36PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > So how about the following patch, which passes very light rcutorture
> > testing but should otherwise be regarded as being under suspicion?
>
> Looks good to me,
>
> Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
Thank you! But...
> Or, if you want me to apply it, I can do that too ;-)
Last night's rcutorture run was not amused. Looking into it...
A pair of full hangs at boot (TASKS03 and TREE04), no console output
whatsoever. Not sure how these changes could cause that, but suspicion
falls on sched_tick_offload_init(). Though even that is a bit strange
because if so, why didn't TREE01 and TREE07 also hang? Again, looking
into it.
Thanx, Paul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists