Re: Another RCU trace. (3.10-rc5)

[Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>]

On Mon, 2013-06-10 at 17:54 -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 05:37:36PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>  > On Mon, 2013-06-10 at 14:18 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>  > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 05:01:23PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
>  > > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 01:33:55PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>  > > > 
>  > > >  > > I saw some of Steven's patches get merged on Friday, is there anything else
>  > > >  > > outstanding that didn't make it in yet that I could test ?
>  > > >  > > Or is this another new bug ?
>  > > >  > 
>  > > >  > I have three fixes queued up at:
>  > > >  > 
>  > > >  > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/paulmck/linux-rcu.git rcu/urgent
>  > > >  > 
>  > > >  > Kind of hard to tell whether they are relevant given the interleaved
>  > > >  > stack traces, but can't hurt to try them out.
>  > > > 
>  > > > Here's another. Looks different.
>  > > 
>  > > I bet that commit d6284099 (trace: Allow idle-safe tracepoints to be
>  > > called from irq) from the above git archive fixes this one.  Just don't
>  > > ask how much I am willing to bet.  ;-)
>  > 
>  > Don't bet much ;-)  This has nothing to do with tracepoints. It's due to
>  > the function tracer. 
> 
> dammit, 20 minutes after I finally cloned the repo.
> Can we go back to posting diffs instead of hashes please ?
> 
> So while updating my list of bugs I've found this cycle, I noticed
> I'd already posted this one a month ago on -rc2.
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/5/21/327
> which led us to this patch https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/5/24/379
> After which I hit a bunch of what seem to be other RCU related bugs.
> 
> So maybe that patch was a winner after all and got dropped ?

I don't think it got dropped, it just seemed that it would go through
Peter:

https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/6/6/456

-- Steve

> 
> 	Dave
>