On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 06:00:47PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Paul, > > On Thu, 16 Dec 2010 17:08:14 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 21:29:58 -0800 "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > RCU problems would normally take longer to run the system out of memory, > > > but who knows? > > > > > > I did a push into -rcu in the suspect time frame, so have pulled it. I am > > > sure that kernel.org will push this change to its mirrors at some point. > > > Just in case tree-by-tree bisecting is faster than commit-by-commit > > > bisecting. > > > > I have bisected it down to the rcu tree, so the three commits that were > > added yesterday are the suspects. I am still bisecting. If will just > > revert those three commits from linux-next today in the hope that Andrew > > will end up with a working tree. > > Bisect finished: > > 4e40200dab0e673b019979b5b8f5e5d1b25885c2 is first bad commit > commit 4e40200dab0e673b019979b5b8f5e5d1b25885c2 > Author: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Fri Dec 10 15:02:47 2010 -0800 > > rcu: fine-tune grace-period begin/end checks > > Use the CPU's bit in rnp->qsmask to determine whether or not the CPU > should try to report a quiescent state. Handle overflow in the check > for rdp->gpnum having fallen behind. > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > So far 4 of my 6 boot tests that failed yesterday have succeeded today > (with those last three rcu commits reverted) - the others are still > building. So I blew it not once, but twice -- once in the patch itself, and once in messing up my -next process. :-/ Please accept my apologies!!! Thanx, Paul -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom policy in Canada: sign http://dissolvethecrtc.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>