Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 9 Jul 2011 20:25:10 -0700 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: PROBLEM: 3.0-rc kernels unbootable since -rc3 |
| |
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 01:45:35AM +0100, julie Sullivan wrote: > >Very good. I have created a new jms.2011.07.07a branch in the -rcu > >git tree at: > > I get my own branch! :-) (thanks for all your trouble with this.) > > >Hello, Julie, > > >Any news? > > Sorry for the delay (again), I have to work very late Fridays and Saturdays. > Anyway, I have tested the six commits on my v3.0-rc4 branch (with > f8b7fc6b514f34a5 and a46e0899eec7a3069bc reverted) and can confirm > that they _all_ produce a bootable kernel at my end.
I am not yet sure whether this is good news or bad news, but thank you very much for all the testing!
> Btw, you may have noticed that my config has RCU_BOOST=n? > If I build a simple v3.0-rc4 kernel (ie one which includes the four > original commits (f8b7fc6b514, a46e0899eec, 09223371dea and > 9a432736904)) but with RCU_BOOST=y it _will_ boot. I didn't know if > this was helpful or not.
OK, that certainly tells me what the next patch in the series needs to be. The reverse of the usual experience, but so it goes.
> If it is helpful, you probably know this, but in order to get > RCU_BOOST=y I have to change a couple of other configs - PREEMPT_RCU=y > (previously n) and to get PREEMPT_RCU=y, my preemption model has to be > 'Preemptible Kernel (Low-Latency Desktop)' - PREEMPT=y (instead of > 'Voluntary Kernel Preemption (Desktop)' - PREEMPT=n which it was > originally).
Agreed, to get RCU_BOOST, you need either TREE_PREEMPT_RCU or TINY_PREEMPT_RCU, which requires PREEMPT.
> It's my day off tomorrow so I'll do some more testing (on -rc5 and > -rc6) (past 1.30am here in the UK now).
I added another patch onto the jms.2011.07.07a in the -rcu git tree. If you get a chance to test it, please let me know how it goes.
Thanx, Paul
| |