linux-next: question about the luto-misc tree

linux-next: question about the luto-misc tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 476 bytes --]

Hi Andy,

The luto-misc tree seems to have a whole series of commits in it that
have just bee removed from the rcu tree ...  You really have to be very
careful if you base your work on a tree that is regularly rebased.

I also wonder if the other commits in that tree are destined for
v3.19?  If they are for v3.20, then they should not be in linux-next
until after v3.19-rc1 has been released.
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: question about the luto-misc tree

[Andy Lutomirski]

On Dec 13, 2014 10:58 PM, "Stephen Rothwell" <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Hi Andy,
>
> The luto-misc tree seems to have a whole series of commits in it that
> have just bee removed from the rcu tree ...  You really have to be very
> careful if you base your work on a tree that is regularly rebased.

Hmm.  They were there a couple days ago.  Paul, what should I do about
this?  I only need the one NMI nesting change for the stuff in
luto/next.

>
> I also wonder if the other commits in that tree are destined for
> v3.19?  If they are for v3.20, then they should not be in linux-next
> until after v3.19-rc1 has been released.

They're for 3.20.  I'll drop the whole series from the next branch for now.

--Andy

> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au

Re: linux-next: question about the luto-misc tree

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 11:26:36PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Dec 13, 2014 10:58 PM, "Stephen Rothwell" <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Andy,
> >
> > The luto-misc tree seems to have a whole series of commits in it that
> > have just bee removed from the rcu tree ...  You really have to be very
> > careful if you base your work on a tree that is regularly rebased.
> 
> Hmm.  They were there a couple days ago.  Paul, what should I do about
> this?  I only need the one NMI nesting change for the stuff in
> luto/next.
> 
> > I also wonder if the other commits in that tree are destined for
> > v3.19?  If they are for v3.20, then they should not be in linux-next
> > until after v3.19-rc1 has been released.
> 
> They're for 3.20.  I'll drop the whole series from the next branch for now.

You mean the NMI nesting change below, correct?  One approach would be
to include the branch rcu/dev from my -rcu tree.  Would that work for you?

							Thanx, Paul

------------------------------------------------------------------------

    rcu: Make rcu_nmi_enter() handle nesting
    
    The x86 architecture has multiple types of NMI-like interrupts: real
    NMIs, machine checks, and, for some values of NMI-like, debugging
    and breakpoint interrupts.  These interrupts can nest inside each
    other.  Andy Lutomirski is adding RCU support to these interrupts,
    so rcu_nmi_enter() and rcu_nmi_exit() must now correctly handle nesting.
    
    This commit therefore introduces nesting, using a clever NMI-coordination
    algorithm suggested by Andy.  The trick is to atomically increment
    ->dynticks (if needed) before manipulating ->dynticks_nmi_nesting on entry
    (and, accordingly, after on exit).  In addition, ->dynticks_nmi_nesting
    is incremented by one if ->dynticks was incremented and by two otherwise.
    This means that when rcu_nmi_exit() sees ->dynticks_nmi_nesting equal
    to one, it knows that ->dynticks must be atomically incremented.
    
    This NMI-coordination algorithms has been validated by the following
    Promela model:
    
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    /*
     * Promela model for Andy Lutomirski's suggested change to rcu_nmi_enter()
     * that allows nesting.
     *
     * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
     * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
     * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
     * (at your option) any later version.
     *
     * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
     * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
     * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
     * GNU General Public License for more details.
     *
     * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
     * along with this program; if not, you can access it online at
     * http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html.
     *
     * Copyright IBM Corporation, 2014
     *
     * Author: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
     */
    
    byte dynticks_nmi_nesting = 0;
    byte dynticks = 0;
    
    /*
     * Promela verision of rcu_nmi_enter().
     */
    inline rcu_nmi_enter()
    {
    	byte incby;
    	byte tmp;
    
    	incby = BUSY_INCBY;
    	assert(dynticks_nmi_nesting >= 0);
    	if
    	:: (dynticks & 1) == 0 ->
    		atomic {
    			dynticks = dynticks + 1;
    		}
    		assert((dynticks & 1) == 1);
    		incby = 1;
    	:: else ->
    		skip;
    	fi;
    	tmp = dynticks_nmi_nesting;
    	tmp = tmp + incby;
    	dynticks_nmi_nesting = tmp;
    	assert(dynticks_nmi_nesting >= 1);
    }
    
    /*
     * Promela verision of rcu_nmi_exit().
     */
    inline rcu_nmi_exit()
    {
    	byte tmp;
    
    	assert(dynticks_nmi_nesting > 0);
    	assert((dynticks & 1) != 0);
    	if
    	:: dynticks_nmi_nesting != 1 ->
    		tmp = dynticks_nmi_nesting;
    		tmp = tmp - BUSY_INCBY;
    		dynticks_nmi_nesting = tmp;
    	:: else ->
    		dynticks_nmi_nesting = 0;
    		atomic {
    			dynticks = dynticks + 1;
    		}
    		assert((dynticks & 1) == 0);
    	fi;
    }
    
    /*
     * Base-level NMI runs non-atomically.  Crudely emulates process-level
     * dynticks-idle entry/exit.
     */
    proctype base_NMI()
    {
    	byte busy;
    
    	busy = 0;
    	do
    	::	/* Emulate base-level dynticks and not. */
    		if
    		:: 1 ->	atomic {
    				dynticks = dynticks + 1;
    			}
    			busy = 1;
    		:: 1 ->	skip;
    		fi;
    
    		/* Verify that we only sometimes have base-level dynticks. */
    		if
    		:: busy == 0 -> skip;
    		:: busy == 1 -> skip;
    		fi;
    
    		/* Model RCU's NMI entry and exit actions. */
    		rcu_nmi_enter();
    		assert((dynticks & 1) == 1);
    		rcu_nmi_exit();
    
    		/* Emulated re-entering base-level dynticks and not. */
    		if
    		:: !busy -> skip;
    		:: busy ->
    			atomic {
    				dynticks = dynticks + 1;
    			}
    			busy = 0;
    		fi;
    
    		/* We had better now be in dyntick-idle mode. */
    		assert((dynticks & 1) == 0);
    	od;
    }
    
    /*
     * Nested NMI runs atomically to emulate interrupting base_level().
     */
    proctype nested_NMI()
    {
    	do
    	::	/*
    		 * Use an atomic section to model a nested NMI.  This is
    		 * guaranteed to interleave into base_NMI() between a pair
    		 * of base_NMI() statements, just as a nested NMI would.
    		 */
    		atomic {
    			/* Verify that we only sometimes are in dynticks. */
    			if
    			:: (dynticks & 1) == 0 -> skip;
    			:: (dynticks & 1) == 1 -> skip;
    			fi;
    
    			/* Model RCU's NMI entry and exit actions. */
    			rcu_nmi_enter();
    			assert((dynticks & 1) == 1);
    			rcu_nmi_exit();
    		}
    	od;
    }
    
    init {
    	run base_NMI();
    	run nested_NMI();
    }
    
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    The following script can be used to run this model if placed in
    rcu_nmi.spin:
    
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    if ! spin -a rcu_nmi.spin
    then
    	echo Spin errors!!!
    	exit 1
    fi
    if ! cc -DSAFETY -o pan pan.c
    then
    	echo Compilation errors!!!
    	exit 1
    fi
    ./pan -m100000
    
    Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
    Reviewed-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>

diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
index 8749f43f3f05..fc0236992655 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c
+++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c
@@ -759,39 +759,71 @@ void rcu_irq_enter(void)
 /**
  * rcu_nmi_enter - inform RCU of entry to NMI context
  *
- * If the CPU was idle with dynamic ticks active, and there is no
- * irq handler running, this updates rdtp->dynticks_nmi to let the
- * RCU grace-period handling know that the CPU is active.
+ * If the CPU was idle from RCU's viewpoint, update rdtp->dynticks and
+ * rdtp->dynticks_nmi_nesting to let the RCU grace-period handling know
+ * that the CPU is active.  This implementation permits nested NMIs, as
+ * long as the nesting level does not overflow an int.  (You will probably
+ * run out of stack space first.)
  */
 void rcu_nmi_enter(void)
 {
 	struct rcu_dynticks *rdtp = this_cpu_ptr(&rcu_dynticks);
+	int incby = 2;
 
-	if (rdtp->dynticks_nmi_nesting == 0 &&
-	    (atomic_read(&rdtp->dynticks) & 0x1))
-		return;
-	rdtp->dynticks_nmi_nesting++;
-	smp_mb__before_atomic();  /* Force delay from prior write. */
-	atomic_inc(&rdtp->dynticks);
-	/* CPUs seeing atomic_inc() must see later RCU read-side crit sects */
-	smp_mb__after_atomic();  /* See above. */
-	WARN_ON_ONCE(!(atomic_read(&rdtp->dynticks) & 0x1));
+	/* Complain about underflow. */
+	WARN_ON_ONCE(rdtp->dynticks_nmi_nesting < 0);
+
+	/*
+	 * If idle from RCU viewpoint, atomically increment ->dynticks
+	 * to mark non-idle and increment ->dynticks_nmi_nesting by one.
+	 * Otherwise, increment ->dynticks_nmi_nesting by two.  This means
+	 * if ->dynticks_nmi_nesting is equal to one, we are guaranteed
+	 * to be in the outermost NMI handler that interrupted an RCU-idle
+	 * period (observation due to Andy Lutomirski).
+	 */
+	if (!(atomic_read(&rdtp->dynticks) & 0x1)) {
+		smp_mb__before_atomic();  /* Force delay from prior write. */
+		atomic_inc(&rdtp->dynticks);
+		/* atomic_inc() before later RCU read-side crit sects */
+		smp_mb__after_atomic();  /* See above. */
+		WARN_ON_ONCE(!(atomic_read(&rdtp->dynticks) & 0x1));
+		incby = 1;
+	}
+	rdtp->dynticks_nmi_nesting += incby;
+	barrier();
 }
 
 /**
  * rcu_nmi_exit - inform RCU of exit from NMI context
  *
- * If the CPU was idle with dynamic ticks active, and there is no
- * irq handler running, this updates rdtp->dynticks_nmi to let the
- * RCU grace-period handling know that the CPU is no longer active.
+ * If we are returning from the outermost NMI handler that interrupted an
+ * RCU-idle period, update rdtp->dynticks and rdtp->dynticks_nmi_nesting
+ * to let the RCU grace-period handling know that the CPU is back to
+ * being RCU-idle.
  */
 void rcu_nmi_exit(void)
 {
 	struct rcu_dynticks *rdtp = this_cpu_ptr(&rcu_dynticks);
 
-	if (rdtp->dynticks_nmi_nesting == 0 ||
-	    --rdtp->dynticks_nmi_nesting != 0)
+	/*
+	 * Check for ->dynticks_nmi_nesting underflow and bad ->dynticks.
+	 * (We are exiting an NMI handler, so RCU better be paying attention
+	 * to us!)
+	 */
+	WARN_ON_ONCE(rdtp->dynticks_nmi_nesting <= 0);
+	WARN_ON_ONCE(!(atomic_read(&rdtp->dynticks) & 0x1));
+
+	/*
+	 * If the nesting level is not 1, the CPU wasn't RCU-idle, so
+	 * leave it in non-RCU-idle state.
+	 */
+	if (rdtp->dynticks_nmi_nesting != 1) {
+		rdtp->dynticks_nmi_nesting -= 2;
 		return;
+	}
+
+	/* This NMI interrupted an RCU-idle CPU, restore RCU-idleness. */
+	rdtp->dynticks_nmi_nesting = 0;
 	/* CPUs seeing atomic_inc() must see prior RCU read-side crit sects */
 	smp_mb__before_atomic();  /* See above. */
 	atomic_inc(&rdtp->dynticks);

Re: linux-next: question about the luto-misc tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1025 bytes --]

Hi Andy,

On Sat, 13 Dec 2014 23:26:36 -0800 Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> wrote:
>
> On Dec 13, 2014 10:58 PM, "Stephen Rothwell" <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > The luto-misc tree seems to have a whole series of commits in it that
> > have just bee removed from the rcu tree ...  You really have to be very
> > careful if you base your work on a tree that is regularly rebased.
> 
> Hmm.  They were there a couple days ago.  Paul, what should I do about
> this?  I only need the one NMI nesting change for the stuff in
> luto/next.

One of them was causing a problem and (I think) the rest were for v3.20
and so Paul reset his tree.

> > I also wonder if the other commits in that tree are destined for
> > v3.19?  If they are for v3.20, then they should not be in linux-next
> > until after v3.19-rc1 has been released.
> 
> They're for 3.20.  I'll drop the whole series from the next branch for now.

Thanks.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: question about the luto-misc tree

[Andy Lutomirski]

On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 4:03 AM, Paul E. McKenney
<paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 11:26:36PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Dec 13, 2014 10:58 PM, "Stephen Rothwell" <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi Andy,
>> >
>> > The luto-misc tree seems to have a whole series of commits in it that
>> > have just bee removed from the rcu tree ...  You really have to be very
>> > careful if you base your work on a tree that is regularly rebased.
>>
>> Hmm.  They were there a couple days ago.  Paul, what should I do about
>> this?  I only need the one NMI nesting change for the stuff in
>> luto/next.
>>
>> > I also wonder if the other commits in that tree are destined for
>> > v3.19?  If they are for v3.20, then they should not be in linux-next
>> > until after v3.19-rc1 has been released.
>>
>> They're for 3.20.  I'll drop the whole series from the next branch for now.
>
> You mean the NMI nesting change below, correct?  One approach would be
> to include the branch rcu/dev from my -rcu tree.  Would that work for you?
>

That would work.

The problem is that, if you rebase again and I don't notice, then
it'll generate a pile of conflicts.  Is there someway that I can flag
my next tree as depending on a certain commi existing in another tree
so that the scripts that generate linux-next will ignore it if the
base commit goes away?

--Andy

Re: linux-next: question about the luto-misc tree

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 08:29:33AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 4:03 AM, Paul E. McKenney
> <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 11:26:36PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> On Dec 13, 2014 10:58 PM, "Stephen Rothwell" <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Hi Andy,
> >> >
> >> > The luto-misc tree seems to have a whole series of commits in it that
> >> > have just bee removed from the rcu tree ...  You really have to be very
> >> > careful if you base your work on a tree that is regularly rebased.
> >>
> >> Hmm.  They were there a couple days ago.  Paul, what should I do about
> >> this?  I only need the one NMI nesting change for the stuff in
> >> luto/next.
> >>
> >> > I also wonder if the other commits in that tree are destined for
> >> > v3.19?  If they are for v3.20, then they should not be in linux-next
> >> > until after v3.19-rc1 has been released.
> >>
> >> They're for 3.20.  I'll drop the whole series from the next branch for now.
> >
> > You mean the NMI nesting change below, correct?  One approach would be
> > to include the branch rcu/dev from my -rcu tree.  Would that work for you?
> 
> That would work.
> 
> The problem is that, if you rebase again and I don't notice, then
> it'll generate a pile of conflicts.  Is there someway that I can flag
> my next tree as depending on a certain commi existing in another tree
> so that the scripts that generate linux-next will ignore it if the
> base commit goes away?

The commits would still stick around because I keep date-encoded branches.
But just to make things easier, I created a andy.2014.11.21a branch that
points to the current commit and will stay there.  Please let me know how
it goes.

							Thanx, Paul

Re: linux-next: question about the luto-misc tree

[Andy Lutomirski]

On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 9:37 AM, Paul E. McKenney
<paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 08:29:33AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 4:03 AM, Paul E. McKenney
>> <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>> > On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 11:26:36PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> >> On Dec 13, 2014 10:58 PM, "Stephen Rothwell" <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Hi Andy,
>> >> >
>> >> > The luto-misc tree seems to have a whole series of commits in it that
>> >> > have just bee removed from the rcu tree ...  You really have to be very
>> >> > careful if you base your work on a tree that is regularly rebased.
>> >>
>> >> Hmm.  They were there a couple days ago.  Paul, what should I do about
>> >> this?  I only need the one NMI nesting change for the stuff in
>> >> luto/next.
>> >>
>> >> > I also wonder if the other commits in that tree are destined for
>> >> > v3.19?  If they are for v3.20, then they should not be in linux-next
>> >> > until after v3.19-rc1 has been released.
>> >>
>> >> They're for 3.20.  I'll drop the whole series from the next branch for now.
>> >
>> > You mean the NMI nesting change below, correct?  One approach would be
>> > to include the branch rcu/dev from my -rcu tree.  Would that work for you?
>>
>> That would work.
>>
>> The problem is that, if you rebase again and I don't notice, then
>> it'll generate a pile of conflicts.  Is there someway that I can flag
>> my next tree as depending on a certain commi existing in another tree
>> so that the scripts that generate linux-next will ignore it if the
>> base commit goes away?
>
> The commits would still stick around because I keep date-encoded branches.
> But just to make things easier, I created a andy.2014.11.21a branch that
> points to the current commit and will stay there.  Please let me know how
> it goes.
>

That's the same commit that's in rcu/dev and was in luto/next, I
think.  Is the issue just that you pulled the whole thing from
whichever linux-rcu branch is in -next, but I still had it, so it
caused a problem?

In any case, I'll wait for 3.19-rc1 before re-adding any of this.

--Andy

>                                                         Thanx, Paul
>



-- 
Andy Lutomirski
AMA Capital Management, LLC

Re: linux-next: question about the luto-misc tree

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 09:41:04AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 9:37 AM, Paul E. McKenney
> <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 08:29:33AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 4:03 AM, Paul E. McKenney
> >> <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> >> > On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 11:26:36PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> >> On Dec 13, 2014 10:58 PM, "Stephen Rothwell" <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Hi Andy,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The luto-misc tree seems to have a whole series of commits in it that
> >> >> > have just bee removed from the rcu tree ...  You really have to be very
> >> >> > careful if you base your work on a tree that is regularly rebased.
> >> >>
> >> >> Hmm.  They were there a couple days ago.  Paul, what should I do about
> >> >> this?  I only need the one NMI nesting change for the stuff in
> >> >> luto/next.
> >> >>
> >> >> > I also wonder if the other commits in that tree are destined for
> >> >> > v3.19?  If they are for v3.20, then they should not be in linux-next
> >> >> > until after v3.19-rc1 has been released.
> >> >>
> >> >> They're for 3.20.  I'll drop the whole series from the next branch for now.
> >> >
> >> > You mean the NMI nesting change below, correct?  One approach would be
> >> > to include the branch rcu/dev from my -rcu tree.  Would that work for you?
> >>
> >> That would work.
> >>
> >> The problem is that, if you rebase again and I don't notice, then
> >> it'll generate a pile of conflicts.  Is there someway that I can flag
> >> my next tree as depending on a certain commi existing in another tree
> >> so that the scripts that generate linux-next will ignore it if the
> >> base commit goes away?
> >
> > The commits would still stick around because I keep date-encoded branches.
> > But just to make things easier, I created a andy.2014.11.21a branch that
> > points to the current commit and will stay there.  Please let me know how
> > it goes.
> 
> That's the same commit that's in rcu/dev and was in luto/next, I
> think.  Is the issue just that you pulled the whole thing from
> whichever linux-rcu branch is in -next, but I still had it, so it
> caused a problem?

I still have the commit.  All I did was move the rcu/next branch that
Stephen pulls from.

> In any case, I'll wait for 3.19-rc1 before re-adding any of this.

That does sound simpler, as I will make this commit available to -next
at that point.  ;-)

							Thanx, Paul

Re: linux-next: question about the luto-misc tree

[Andy Lutomirski]

On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 10:17 AM, Paul E. McKenney
<paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 09:41:04AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 9:37 AM, Paul E. McKenney
>> <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>> > On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 08:29:33AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> >> On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 4:03 AM, Paul E. McKenney
>> >> <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>> >> > On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 11:26:36PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> >> >> On Dec 13, 2014 10:58 PM, "Stephen Rothwell" <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Hi Andy,
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > The luto-misc tree seems to have a whole series of commits in it that
>> >> >> > have just bee removed from the rcu tree ...  You really have to be very
>> >> >> > careful if you base your work on a tree that is regularly rebased.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Hmm.  They were there a couple days ago.  Paul, what should I do about
>> >> >> this?  I only need the one NMI nesting change for the stuff in
>> >> >> luto/next.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > I also wonder if the other commits in that tree are destined for
>> >> >> > v3.19?  If they are for v3.20, then they should not be in linux-next
>> >> >> > until after v3.19-rc1 has been released.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> They're for 3.20.  I'll drop the whole series from the next branch for now.
>> >> >
>> >> > You mean the NMI nesting change below, correct?  One approach would be
>> >> > to include the branch rcu/dev from my -rcu tree.  Would that work for you?
>> >>
>> >> That would work.
>> >>
>> >> The problem is that, if you rebase again and I don't notice, then
>> >> it'll generate a pile of conflicts.  Is there someway that I can flag
>> >> my next tree as depending on a certain commi existing in another tree
>> >> so that the scripts that generate linux-next will ignore it if the
>> >> base commit goes away?
>> >
>> > The commits would still stick around because I keep date-encoded branches.
>> > But just to make things easier, I created a andy.2014.11.21a branch that
>> > points to the current commit and will stay there.  Please let me know how
>> > it goes.
>>
>> That's the same commit that's in rcu/dev and was in luto/next, I
>> think.  Is the issue just that you pulled the whole thing from
>> whichever linux-rcu branch is in -next, but I still had it, so it
>> caused a problem?
>
> I still have the commit.  All I did was move the rcu/next branch that
> Stephen pulls from.
>
>> In any case, I'll wait for 3.19-rc1 before re-adding any of this.
>
> That does sound simpler, as I will make this commit available to -next
> at that point.  ;-)
>

I'm re-adding the branch, since 3.19-rc1 is out, the change appears to
still exist as-is in your tree, and it merges cleanly and builds in
the latest -next for me.  Let me know if this will be problematic for
any reason.

Thanks,
Andy

>                                                         Thanx, Paul
>



-- 
Andy Lutomirski
AMA Capital Management, LLC

Re: linux-next: question about the luto-misc tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 850 bytes --]

Hi Andy,

On Mon, 22 Dec 2014 11:16:56 -0800 Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> wrote:
>
> I'm re-adding the branch, since 3.19-rc1 is out, the change appears to
> still exist as-is in your tree, and it merges cleanly and builds in
> the latest -next for me.  Let me know if this will be problematic for
> any reason.

So, now we have a problem because Paul has rebased a whole set of
commits that you have in your tree.  Commits c6dc129cf2d1 to
f58d100f65ae in your tree Paul has rebased on top of v3.19-rc1.  If you
are going to base your tree on (part of) Paul's tree, then Paul has to
agree to not rebase that part of his tree or you have to keep a watch
on his tree and rebase you tree on top of those rebased commits.
Really, the first should happen.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: linux-next: question about the luto-misc tree

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 12:33:36PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Andy,
> 
> On Mon, 22 Dec 2014 11:16:56 -0800 Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> wrote:
> >
> > I'm re-adding the branch, since 3.19-rc1 is out, the change appears to
> > still exist as-is in your tree, and it merges cleanly and builds in
> > the latest -next for me.  Let me know if this will be problematic for
> > any reason.
> 
> So, now we have a problem because Paul has rebased a whole set of
> commits that you have in your tree.  Commits c6dc129cf2d1 to
> f58d100f65ae in your tree Paul has rebased on top of v3.19-rc1.  If you
> are going to base your tree on (part of) Paul's tree, then Paul has to
> agree to not rebase that part of his tree or you have to keep a watch
> on his tree and rebase you tree on top of those rebased commits.
> Really, the first should happen.

Apologies, Stephen -- I do seem to be your problem child at the moment!

The desried commit is "rcu: Make rcu_nmi_enter() handle nesting", correct?
Once confirmed or corrected, I will place this commit at the base of my
3.20 tree, which will rebase it one last time, then avoid rebasing it
in the future, at least assuming no more bugs in that particular commit.

							Thanx, Paul

Re: linux-next: question about the luto-misc tree

[Andy Lutomirski]

On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Paul E. McKenney
<paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 12:33:36PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi Andy,
>>
>> On Mon, 22 Dec 2014 11:16:56 -0800 Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > I'm re-adding the branch, since 3.19-rc1 is out, the change appears to
>> > still exist as-is in your tree, and it merges cleanly and builds in
>> > the latest -next for me.  Let me know if this will be problematic for
>> > any reason.
>>
>> So, now we have a problem because Paul has rebased a whole set of
>> commits that you have in your tree.  Commits c6dc129cf2d1 to
>> f58d100f65ae in your tree Paul has rebased on top of v3.19-rc1.  If you
>> are going to base your tree on (part of) Paul's tree, then Paul has to
>> agree to not rebase that part of his tree or you have to keep a watch
>> on his tree and rebase you tree on top of those rebased commits.
>> Really, the first should happen.
>
> Apologies, Stephen -- I do seem to be your problem child at the moment!
>
> The desried commit is "rcu: Make rcu_nmi_enter() handle nesting", correct?
> Once confirmed or corrected, I will place this commit at the base of my
> 3.20 tree, which will rebase it one last time, then avoid rebasing it
> in the future, at least assuming no more bugs in that particular commit.
>

Sorry for responding out of order and in HTML.  I just got back from a
couple of days in the wilderness, and I'm catching up out of order.

I've dropped this from my tree for now.  Paul, when you've done the
final rebase, can you let me know?

Thanks,
Andy

>                                                         Thanx, Paul
>



-- 
Andy Lutomirski
AMA Capital Management, LLC

Re: linux-next: question about the luto-misc tree

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 07:33:43AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Dec 25, 2014 5:33 PM, "Stephen Rothwell" <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Andy,
> >
> > On Mon, 22 Dec 2014 11:16:56 -0800 Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm re-adding the branch, since 3.19-rc1 is out, the change appears to
> > > still exist as-is in your tree, and it merges cleanly and builds in
> > > the latest -next for me.  Let me know if this will be problematic for
> > > any reason.
> >
> > So, now we have a problem because Paul has rebased a whole set of
> > commits that you have in your tree.  Commits c6dc129cf2d1 to
> > f58d100f65ae in your tree Paul has rebased on top of v3.19-rc1.  If you
> > are going to base your tree on (part of) Paul's tree, then Paul has to
> > agree to not rebase that part of his tree or you have to keep a watch
> > on his tree and rebase you tree on top of those rebased commits.
> > Really, the first should happen.
> 
> Are there any scripts out there that can do this for me?
> 
> Paul, when do you expect to be done rebasing?  Or, even better, when do you
> expect to send all of this to -tip?  If the latter will be reasonably soon,
> I can just wait for that.

I believe that I have it where it will live from here on out, namely
at 734d16801349 (rcu: Make rcu_nmi_enter() handle nesting) in -rcu.
The only reason I would move it is if it turned out to be fatally buggy,
but given your testing the odds of this happening are hopefully quite low.
(Famous last words!)

							Thaxnx, Paul