From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail11.truemail.it (mail11.truemail.it [217.194.8.81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 81208266593; Tue, 8 Apr 2025 09:35:37 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.194.8.81 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1744104939; cv=none; b=XF447oFQ0f+UNPz8y2XzvaTMWruoAA/VEi2FOLuQR0tqbZOIfVNaKIsGpKLt4dEa0zC0k8zYB7C9IH0Kry/ffRPJDiWRit9aTZohkP0pc8zwVu7cPFqrDxy3VE0pgpfF5mOjdlnuTNJKBb6wywQyzw8kRk9Qrw0Tq9XZCGruuYI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1744104939; c=relaxed/simple; bh=EJSHMKpGhViqTfouoTjG+vkCRWxUv1idSyLcCyeRa1Q=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=FowtkyRXLclY4D5BWZUHH8gEapeI9B+ojKAZz9fq83QD/WuJUmNNaKaNZO3LYPR6vAUVMPRYXC41xE3G40WrL2wfIGP9kQwYjfVsoSBFA5KfRFWIppJPKh2tz3tKmT2WdcsblUQrJWi9eGz8Zqk0GHOgXQl+ONAg6cnLD1nzADo= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=dolcini.it; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=dolcini.it; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=dolcini.it header.i=@dolcini.it header.b=kRPeka47; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.194.8.81 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=dolcini.it Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=dolcini.it Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=dolcini.it header.i=@dolcini.it header.b="kRPeka47" Received: from gaggiata.pivistrello.it (93-49-2-63.ip317.fastwebnet.it [93.49.2.63]) by mail11.truemail.it (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 7B98F1F9BC; Tue, 8 Apr 2025 11:35:35 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=dolcini.it; s=default; t=1744104935; bh=epFMM6E3b5n0AAjQqhCMwFutqLu+axl/bDlyBr62jpM=; h=Received:From:To:Subject; b=kRPeka47FL9mUb/LiDd/KpngGvLjxHugS25K7j24KcMayZUKVJPhJdJic4fXTaRVi fPOKGwxQ9qqLyl/6RhA+Mkw+mSUUotd/VLHTPRETb8/UwuMohmuRXW2/8U1bs6f4VH Oi86j2bfeCOn5i5AOeFvnjiAxLLKcY1NZFy8sbaYmOVOVxEuQogIE6orN3NX/x1J8h YqBnKXKQ9DHpF+MV9LJeyRylGN9US8ePAGtJBC4+Ph1R1G+T1m6qPROnW/SZtOPqNl HOkkaWNeoZ7K7vLm7xW/IvqQLofWQOA+ODX83FJvJAcIHsqOYm8yU5rO7K+M2NBmFz tJS0d65nIZHLw== Received: by gaggiata.pivistrello.it (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 328987F8D5; Tue, 8 Apr 2025 11:35:35 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2025 11:35:35 +0200 From: Francesco Dolcini To: Paul Menzel Cc: Francesco Dolcini , Amitkumar Karwar , Neeraj Kale , Nishanth Menon , Tero Kristo , Santosh Shilimkar , linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-serial@vger.kernel.org, regressions@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: Kernel WARNING (RCU) with btnxpuart on TI AM62 platform Message-ID: References: <20250408083512.GA26035@francesco-nb> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: Hello, On Tue, Apr 08, 2025 at 11:26:47AM +0200, Paul Menzel wrote: > [Cc: +regressions@] > > #regzbot introduced: v6.14..v6.15-rc1 > > > Thank you for your report. > > Am 08.04.25 um 10:35 schrieb Francesco Dolcini: > > > I do have the following kernel warning with 6.15-rc1, on a TI AM62 > > platform (arm64), single CPU core, using btnxpuart driver, any idea? > > PREEMPT_RT is enabled, if it matters. > > > > Either the issue is not systematic, or multi cores SoCs are not affected > > (no error on the exact same image on a dual nor on quad core TI AM62). > > > > > > [ 23.139080] Voluntary context switch within RCU read-side critical section! > > [ 23.139119] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 61 at /kernel/rcu/tree_plugin.h:332 rcu_note_context_switch+0x3c4/0x430 ... > As I understood, that it’s a regression, and you can reproduce it, would it > be possible, that you bisected the issue? I am not sure if this is a regression. It's possible that the issue is not new, and it is just non systematic. For sure it was reproduced by our CI on v6.15-rc1. Francesco