[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <bd8dc7fa-92e6-4bd4-9393-d4d66d1227c9@paulmck-laptop>
Date: Fri, 9 May 2025 07:32:59 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To: Joel Fernandes <joelagnelf@...dia.com>
Cc: rcu@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...a.com,
rostedt@...dmis.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Make rcutorture safe(r) for arm64
On Fri, May 09, 2025 at 09:18:00AM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>
>
> On 5/8/2025 7:42 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Hello!
> >
> > This series makes a few small updates to make rcutorture run better
> > on arm64 servers. Remaining issues include TREE07 .config issues
> > that are addressed by Mark Rutland's porting of PREEMPT_LAZY to arm64
> > and by upcoming work to handle the fact that arm64 kernels cannot be
> > built with CONFIG_SMP=n. In the meantime, the CONFIG_SMP=n issue can
> > be worked around by explictly specifying the TREE01, TREE02, TREE03,
> > TREE04, TREE05, TREE07, SRCU-L, SRCU-N, SRCU-P, TASKS01, TASKS03, RUDE01,
> > TRACE01, and TRACE02 scenarios, preferably in a script. (But if you
> > want typing practice, don't let me stand in your way!)
> >
> > 1. Check for "Call trace:" as well as "Call Trace:".
> >
> > 2. Reduce TREE01 CPU overcommit.
> >
> > 3. Remove MAXSMP and CPUMASK_OFFSTACK from TREE01.
> >
>
> These I will take for 6.16 and run some tests, since we're seeing these issues
> on ARM. But let me know if you want to delay to 6.17. Thanks!
Your decision on both sets makes a lot of sense to me, v6.16 for the
simple ARM-related ones and v6.17 for the less-important and more-complex
series.
Thanx, Paul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists