From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755431AbYLCBhQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Dec 2008 20:37:16 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753016AbYLCBhD (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Dec 2008 20:37:03 -0500 Received: from e1.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.141]:47675 "EHLO e1.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752809AbYLCBhB (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Dec 2008 20:37:01 -0500 Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 17:36:59 -0800 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Andi Kleen Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cl@linux-foundation.org, mingo@elte.hu, akpm@linux-foundation.org, manfred@colorfullife.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com, josht@linux.vnet.ibm.com, schamp@sgi.com, niv@us.ibm.com, dvhltc@us.ibm.com, ego@in.ibm.com, laijs@cn.fujitsu.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, peterz@infradead.org, penberg@cs.helsinki.fi, tglx@linutronix.de Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip] v9 scalable classic RCU implementation Message-ID: <20081203013659.GH6719@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <20081202222157.GA14911@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20081202233144.GE6703@one.firstfloor.org> <20081202235145.GF6719@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20081203001811.GF6703@one.firstfloor.org> <20081203004759.GG6719@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20081203011042.GH6703@one.firstfloor.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20081203011042.GH6703@one.firstfloor.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15+20070412 (2007-04-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 02:10:42AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: > > On Power, I see a hang in all three flavors of RCU when CPU hotplug > > is enabled and dynticks is not. I have not yet seen this hang on x86. > > On Power, the hang occurs in the CPU-offline code, and is identical to > > the hangs I was seeing in 2.6.27, except that "sleep 1" does not hang > > in recent 2.6.28 versions. So the timeout is apparently failing to fire > > (or being ignored) for some other reason. > > > > Is this similar to what you are seeing on x86? > > Yes it is. OK, then I will consider them to be the same bug for the moment. Thanx, Paul