From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964887Ab2CIP7a (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Mar 2012 10:59:30 -0500 Received: from e8.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.138]:36740 "EHLO e8.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964854Ab2CIP72 (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Mar 2012 10:59:28 -0500 Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 13:18:32 -0800 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Borislav Petkov , Linus Torvalds , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: Linux 3.3-rc6 Message-ID: <20120308211832.GU2348@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <20120307103227.GA5237@x1.osrc.amd.com> <20120307121138.GB5237@x1.osrc.amd.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120307121138.GB5237@x1.osrc.amd.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 12030915-9360-0000-0000-000004642D83 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 01:11:38PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 11:32:27AM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 03, 2012 at 06:57:31PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > Hmm. Nothing much to say about this -rc: it really is all small fixes > > > and cleanups. > > > > > > In fact, it's been calm enough that this *might* be the last -rc, but > > > we'll see how the upcoming week goes. If it stays calm (and hopefully > > > even calms down some more), there doesn't seem to be any major reason > > > to drag out the release cycle any more. > > > > > > But hey, that does imply that people who have seen regressions should > > > re-check them and holler loudly if they are still seeing problems. > > > > Just a couple of warnings, just saw them when booted > > 3.3.0-rc6-00104-gf3969bf78f14 yesterday on this box. I'm ccing Paul for > > the first two, > > Ok, looks like Paul knows about those already: > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=132744022215850 and further. > > @Paul: which patch is the latest adding rcu_idle_enter/_exit() calls to pm_idle > assignees, which you'd like me to test? This one, which defines RCU_NONIDLE(): https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/2/3/498 And then the following patch on top of that. Thanx, Paul ------------------------------------------------------------------------ x86: Protect printk() in amd_e400_idle() with RCU_NONIDLE() Because printk() uses RCU, it cannot be used in the idle loop unless enclosed by RCU_NONIDLE(). This commit makes the required adjustment. Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/process.c b/arch/x86/kernel/process.c index 15763af..b185a32 100644 --- a/arch/x86/kernel/process.c +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/process.c @@ -552,7 +552,9 @@ static void amd_e400_idle(void) amd_e400_c1e_detected = true; if (!boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_NONSTOP_TSC)) mark_tsc_unstable("TSC halt in AMD C1E"); - printk(KERN_INFO "System has AMD C1E enabled\n"); + RCU_NONIDLE( + printk(KERN_INFO "System has AMD C1E enabled\n"); + ); } }