Re: next: suspicious RCU usage message since commit 'rcu: Remove superfluous versions of rcu_read_lock_sched_held()'

From: Guenter Roeck
Date: Sat May 14 2016 - 11:43:07 EST


On 04/25/2016 01:49 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 01:25:10PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 10:12:39AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 11:26:41PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On 04/24/2016 10:49 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 10:37:25PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On 04/24/2016 10:28 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 04:56:38PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:

[ . . . ]

After making the same change in _pwrdm_state_switch(), the traceback is gone
>from my tests (beagle, beagle-xm, and overo-tobi).

Very good!

(And yes, you normally find these one at a time...)

Are you going to submit a formal patch ?

I can, but please feel free to send mine along with yours, if you wish.

I think it would be best if you send a single patch which fixes both calls.

Like this one?

If so, could you please run it to make sure that it actually fixes the
problem? And if it does, would you be willing to give me a Tested-by?

It does. Tested-by: inline below.

Got it, thank you!

If the ARM guys are willing to take this, it might hit the next merge
window, or perhaps they will take it as an exception. If I push it
up my usual route, it will be a bit later.

I just now sent it out, so hopefully they will grab it. ;-)

The problem is still seen in next-20160513, so it looks like the patch was not accepted.

I recently learned that arm has a special way of submitting patches. See
http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/developer/patches/ for details. If I understand correctly,
you'll have to send the patch to patches@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, and it has to be formatted
correctly (eg no "[PATCH]" in the subject line, and some other information added).
I never tried it myself, so I don't really know how exactly it works.

Guenter