Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Another RCU trace. (3.10-rc5) | From | Steven Rostedt <> | Date | Mon, 10 Jun 2013 18:10:56 -0400 |
| |
On Mon, 2013-06-10 at 17:54 -0400, Dave Jones wrote: > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 05:37:36PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Mon, 2013-06-10 at 14:18 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 05:01:23PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 01:33:55PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I saw some of Steven's patches get merged on Friday, is there anything else > > > > > > outstanding that didn't make it in yet that I could test ? > > > > > > Or is this another new bug ? > > > > > > > > > > I have three fixes queued up at: > > > > > > > > > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/paulmck/linux-rcu.git rcu/urgent > > > > > > > > > > Kind of hard to tell whether they are relevant given the interleaved > > > > > stack traces, but can't hurt to try them out. > > > > > > > > Here's another. Looks different. > > > > > > I bet that commit d6284099 (trace: Allow idle-safe tracepoints to be > > > called from irq) from the above git archive fixes this one. Just don't > > > ask how much I am willing to bet. ;-) > > > > Don't bet much ;-) This has nothing to do with tracepoints. It's due to > > the function tracer. > > dammit, 20 minutes after I finally cloned the repo. > Can we go back to posting diffs instead of hashes please ? > > So while updating my list of bugs I've found this cycle, I noticed > I'd already posted this one a month ago on -rc2. > https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/5/21/327 > which led us to this patch https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/5/24/379 > After which I hit a bunch of what seem to be other RCU related bugs. > > So maybe that patch was a winner after all and got dropped ?
I don't think it got dropped, it just seemed that it would go through Peter:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/6/6/456
-- Steve
> > Dave >
| |