diff for duplicates of <20170731162757.000058ba@huawei.com> diff --git a/a/1.txt b/N1/1.txt index d1bdc2c..f8d01ab 100644 --- a/a/1.txt +++ b/N1/1.txt @@ -37,15 +37,15 @@ On Mon, 31 Jul 2017 08:04:11 -0700 > > > > > > > > > > So I look for "rcu_preempt" timer events and find these: > > > > > -> > > > > rcu_preempt-9 [019] .... 827.579114: timer_init: timer=ffff8017d5fc7da0 -> > > > > rcu_preempt-9 [019] d..1 827.579115: timer_start: timer=ffff8017d5fc7da0 function=process_timeout +> > > > > rcu_preempt-9 [019] .... 827.579114: timer_init: timerÿff8017d5fc7da0 +> > > > > rcu_preempt-9 [019] d..1 827.579115: timer_start: timerÿff8017d5fc7da0 function=process_timeout > > > > > > > > > > Next look for "ffff8017d5fc7da0" and I don't find anything else. > > > > It does show up off the bottom of what would fit in pastebin... > > > > -> > > > rcu_preempt-9 [001] d..1 837.681077: timer_cancel: timer=ffff8017d5fc7da0 -> > > > rcu_preempt-9 [001] .... 837.681086: timer_init: timer=ffff8017d5fc7da0 -> > > > rcu_preempt-9 [001] d..1 837.681087: timer_start: timer=ffff8017d5fc7da0 function=process_timeout expires=4295101298 [timeout=1] cpu=1 idx=0 flags= +> > > > rcu_preempt-9 [001] d..1 837.681077: timer_cancel: timerÿff8017d5fc7da0 +> > > > rcu_preempt-9 [001] .... 837.681086: timer_init: timerÿff8017d5fc7da0 +> > > > rcu_preempt-9 [001] d..1 837.681087: timer_start: timerÿff8017d5fc7da0 function=process_timeout expiresB95101298 [timeout=1] cpu=1 idx=0 flags= > > > > > > Odd. I would expect an expiration... And ten seconds is way longer > > > than the requested one jiffy! @@ -65,7 +65,7 @@ On Mon, 31 Jul 2017 08:04:11 -0700 > > > > There is an errata work around for the timers on this particular board. > > > > I'm only vaguely aware of it, so may be unconnected. > > > > -> > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c?h=v4.13-rc2&id=bb42ca47401010fc02901b5e8f79e40a26f208cb +> > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c?h=v4.13-rc2&id»42ca47401010fc02901b5e8f79e40a26f208cb > > > > > > > > Seems unlikely though! + we've not yet seen it on the other chips that > > > > errata effects (not that that means much). diff --git a/a/content_digest b/N1/content_digest index 4fea807..fe78b90 100644 --- a/a/content_digest +++ b/N1/content_digest @@ -11,19 +11,8 @@ "ref\020170731150411.GA3730@linux.vnet.ibm.com\0" "From\0Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>\0" "Subject\0Re: RCU lockup issues when CONFIG_SOFTLOCKUP_DETECTOR=n - any one else seeing this?\0" - "Date\0Mon, 31 Jul 2017 16:27:57 +0100\0" - "To\0Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>\0" - "Cc\0<dzickus@redhat.com>" - <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> - <linuxarm@huawei.com> - Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com> - <abdhalee@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - <sparclinux@vger.kernel.org> - <akpm@linux-foundation.org> - <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org> - David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> - <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org> - " <tglx@linutronix.de>\0" + "Date\0Mon, 31 Jul 2017 15:27:57 +0000\0" + "To\0linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org\0" "\00:1\0" "b\0" "On Mon, 31 Jul 2017 08:04:11 -0700\n" @@ -65,15 +54,15 @@ "> > > > > \n" "> > > > > So I look for \"rcu_preempt\" timer events and find these:\n" "> > > > > \n" - "> > > > > rcu_preempt-9 [019] .... 827.579114: timer_init: timer=ffff8017d5fc7da0\n" - "> > > > > rcu_preempt-9 [019] d..1 827.579115: timer_start: timer=ffff8017d5fc7da0 function=process_timeout \n" + "> > > > > rcu_preempt-9 [019] .... 827.579114: timer_init: timer\303\277ff8017d5fc7da0\n" + "> > > > > rcu_preempt-9 [019] d..1 827.579115: timer_start: timer\303\277ff8017d5fc7da0 function=process_timeout \n" "> > > > > \n" "> > > > > Next look for \"ffff8017d5fc7da0\" and I don't find anything else. \n" "> > > > It does show up off the bottom of what would fit in pastebin...\n" "> > > > \n" - "> > > > rcu_preempt-9 [001] d..1 837.681077: timer_cancel: timer=ffff8017d5fc7da0\n" - "> > > > rcu_preempt-9 [001] .... 837.681086: timer_init: timer=ffff8017d5fc7da0\n" - "> > > > rcu_preempt-9 [001] d..1 837.681087: timer_start: timer=ffff8017d5fc7da0 function=process_timeout expires=4295101298 [timeout=1] cpu=1 idx=0 flags= \n" + "> > > > rcu_preempt-9 [001] d..1 837.681077: timer_cancel: timer\303\277ff8017d5fc7da0\n" + "> > > > rcu_preempt-9 [001] .... 837.681086: timer_init: timer\303\277ff8017d5fc7da0\n" + "> > > > rcu_preempt-9 [001] d..1 837.681087: timer_start: timer\303\277ff8017d5fc7da0 function=process_timeout expiresB95101298 [timeout=1] cpu=1 idx=0 flags= \n" "> > > \n" "> > > Odd. I would expect an expiration... And ten seconds is way longer\n" "> > > than the requested one jiffy!\n" @@ -93,7 +82,7 @@ "> > > > There is an errata work around for the timers on this particular board.\n" "> > > > I'm only vaguely aware of it, so may be unconnected.\n" "> > > > \n" - "> > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c?h=v4.13-rc2&id=bb42ca47401010fc02901b5e8f79e40a26f208cb\n" + "> > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c?h=v4.13-rc2&id\302\27342ca47401010fc02901b5e8f79e40a26f208cb\n" "> > > > \n" "> > > > Seems unlikely though! + we've not yet seen it on the other chips that\n" "> > > > errata effects (not that that means much). \n" @@ -138,4 +127,4 @@ "> > \n" > -84aedccdfd26c4710fb4509d8308e9dd4d112af16e50da493d73566fd8f90172 +3ec9d58b33323d57065342fdfd20b622ae8b22087f42abbcb0c2d3d242a36bce
diff --git a/a/content_digest b/N2/content_digest index 4fea807..25a77b6 100644 --- a/a/content_digest +++ b/N2/content_digest @@ -9,21 +9,10 @@ "ref\020170728190349.GM3730@linux.vnet.ibm.com\0" "ref\020170731120847.00003d5c@huawei.com\0" "ref\020170731150411.GA3730@linux.vnet.ibm.com\0" - "From\0Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>\0" - "Subject\0Re: RCU lockup issues when CONFIG_SOFTLOCKUP_DETECTOR=n - any one else seeing this?\0" + "From\0Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com (Jonathan Cameron)\0" + "Subject\0RCU lockup issues when CONFIG_SOFTLOCKUP_DETECTOR=n - any one else seeing this?\0" "Date\0Mon, 31 Jul 2017 16:27:57 +0100\0" - "To\0Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>\0" - "Cc\0<dzickus@redhat.com>" - <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> - <linuxarm@huawei.com> - Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com> - <abdhalee@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - <sparclinux@vger.kernel.org> - <akpm@linux-foundation.org> - <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org> - David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> - <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org> - " <tglx@linutronix.de>\0" + "To\0linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org\0" "\00:1\0" "b\0" "On Mon, 31 Jul 2017 08:04:11 -0700\n" @@ -138,4 +127,4 @@ "> > \n" > -84aedccdfd26c4710fb4509d8308e9dd4d112af16e50da493d73566fd8f90172 +0124480fa1dadae35836957cfbef7a581b2c48264ebcf3be6344cceb4deda455
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.