[Patch] tmpfs fixes against 2.4.6-pre(2)

Hi Linus, This is the second part of my patches. Writing out of a mapping of a tmpfs file into the same file can deadlock. This is running in the -ac series since some while. Please apply Christoph diff -uNr 6-pre8-fix1/include/linux/shmem_fs.h 6-pre8-fix2/include/linux/shmem_f

[Patch] tmpfs fixes against 2.4.6-pre

-pre8/mm/shmem.c 6-pre8-fix1/mm/shmem.c --- 6-pre8/mm/shmem.c Tue Jun 12 09:49:28 2001 +++ 6-pre8-fix1/mm/shmem.c Tue Jul 3 08:55:20 2001 @@ -3,7 +3,8 @@ * * Copyright (C) 2000 Linus Torvalds. * 2000 Transmeta Corp. - * 2000 Christoph Rohland

[Patch] tmpfs/ramfs accounting

Hi Alan, here is the patch you backed out for -ac22. I slightly changed the approach: I do not rely on removepage to calculate the fs size any more since the special-casing was ugly and PG_marker was dropped. But I use removepage for the shmem_nrpages calculation. Please apply C

Re: Shared memory quantity not being reflected by /proc/meminfo

Hi Allan, On Sun, 24 Jun 2001, Allan Duncan wrote: > OK, it's fine by me if the "shared" under 2.2.x is not the same, > however in that case the field should not appear at all in meminfo, > rather than the current zero value, which leads lesser kernel > hackers like me up the garden path. This w

Re: Shared memory quantity not being reflected by /proc/meminfo

Hi Albert, On Sat, 23 Jun 2001, Albert D. Cahalan wrote: > You misunderstood what 2.2.xx kernels were reporting. > The "shared" memory in /proc/meminfo refers to something > completely unrelated to SysV shared memory. This is no > longer calculated because the computation was too costly. But the

[Patch] tmpfs fixes against 2.4.6-pre

-fix/mm/shmem.c Thu Jun 21 15:52:26 2001 @@ -3,7 +3,8 @@ * * Copyright (C) 2000 Linus Torvalds. * 2000 Transmeta Corp. - * 2000 Christoph Rohland + * 2000-2001 Christoph Rohland + * 2000-2001 SAP AG * * This file is released under

Re: Linux 2.4.5-ac16

Hi Alan, On Tue, 19 Jun 2001, Alan Cox wrote: > 2.4.5-ac16 > o Drop the shmem/removepage changes to see if they(me) > are cuaisng the instabilities in ac15 Any conclusions on that? Greetings Christoph - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux

Re: Linux 2.4.5-ac14

Hi Dieter, On Fri, 15 Jun 2001, Dieter Nützel wrote: > I see 4.29 GB under shm with your latest try. > something wrong? Yes, this is nasty. The appended patch fixes that. (I am not really happy to need the PG_marker flag for writepage.) The patch also fixes two other problems: - shmem_file_setu

[Patch] 2.4.5-ac13 ramfs and tmpfs accounting

Hi Alan, ramfs accounting does not get notified when a clean page gets dropped from the inode. Also tmpfs should use the new function to do accurate accounting. Else the cached field in -ac will get spurious negative values. The following patch fixes both. Greetings Christoph

Re: DoS using tmpfs

Hi Pavel, On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, Pavel Roskin wrote: > Hello! > > It appears that a system with tmpfs mounted with the default (!!!) > parameters can be used by ordinary users to make the system > non-functional. ... > 1) tmpfs, as opposed to ramfs doesn't limit the usage by >default. It's no

Re: unused shared memory is written into core dump - bug or feature?

Hi Peter, On Tue, 12 Jun 2001, Peter Niemayer wrote: > I just noticed that when I attach some SYSV shared memory segments > to my process and then that process dies from a SIGSEGV that _all_ > the shared memory is dumped into the core file, even if it was never > used and therefore didn't show up

Re: tmpfs + sendfile bug ?

Hi Linus, On Mon, 21 May 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Christoph Rohland > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>tmpfs does not provide the necessary functions for sendfile and lo: >>readpage, prepare_write and commitwrite. >&g

Re: tmpfs + sendfile bug ?

Hi Pierre, On Mon, 21 May 2001, Pierre Etchemaite wrote: > I just found a problem GETting a file stored in tmpfs using proftpd; > I always get a "426 Transfer aborted. Data connection closed." > > That could be a bug with tmpfs and sendfile in 2.4.5-pre4 : > > [...] > read(8, "%PDF-1.4\r%\342\3

[Patch] tmpfs accounting cleanup for -ac series

Hi Alan, While looking at the -ac version of ramfs I noticed that there is a new address operation introduced which I can use to cleanup shmem. This patch throws away some magic recalculation and makes the accounting of shmem accurate. It also encapsulates all accesses to the superblock_info in

[Patch] ramfs accounting in -ac broken

Hi Alan, The ramfs accounting is broken for shared mmaps. It simply does not recognize the pages allocated by writing into a shared mapping but takes them into account when freed. The attached patch should fix that. Greetings Christoph --- 4-ac9/fs/ramfs/inode.c Thu May 17

Re: [PATCH] rootfs (part 1)

Hi Alan, On Thu, 17 May 2001, Alan Cox wrote: > I think you have a major tool problem. > > bash-2.04$ size mm/shmem.o >text data bss dec hex filename >7422 572 079941f3a mm/shmem.o > bash-2.04$ size fs/ramfs/ramfs.o >text data

Re: [PATCH] rootfs (part 1)

Hi Alexander, On Wed, 16 May 2001, Alexander Viro wrote: > Because what I need is an absolute minimum. Heck, I don't even use > regular files (in the full variant of patch, that is). They might > become useful, but I can live with mkdir() and mknod(). So what about adding shmem_mknod and shmem_m

Re: [PATCH] rootfs (part 1)

Hi Linus, On Wed, 16 May 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On 16 May 2001, Christoph Rohland wrote: >> >> cr:/speicher/src/u4ac9 $ ls -l mm/shmem.o* >> -rw-r--r--1 cr users 154652 Mai 16 19:27 mm/shmem.o-tmpfs >> -rw-r--r--1 cr users

Re: [PATCH] rootfs (part 1)

Hi Linus, On Wed, 16 May 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Looks ok, but it also feels like 2.5.x stuff to me. > > Also, there's the question of whether to make ramfs just built-in, > or make _tmpfs_ built in - ramfs is certainly simpler, but tmpfs > does the same things and you need that one for s

Re: [PATCH] rootfs (part 1)

Hi Al, On Wed, 16 May 2001, Alexander Viro wrote: > One point that might be better done differently - since we > need ramfs for boot I've just made fs/Config.in declare CONFIG_RAMFS > as define_bool CONFIG_RAMFS y. If ramfs grows (e.g. gets resource > limits patches from -ac) we might be be

[Patch] allow tmpfs bigger than 1GB on s390x

Hi Martin, Here is the patch which implements triple indirect blocks in tmpfs. For the rest of the word: This is needed since s390x is a 64 Bit platform with pagesize of 4k :-( It is on top of my other tmpfs fixes which you can find at ftp://ftp.sap.com/pub/linuxlab/people/cr Greetings

Assorted tmpfs fixes

cached = atomic_read(&page_cache_size); + shmem = atomic_read(&shmem_nrpages); + if (cached > shmem) + cached -= shmem; + /* Sometimes we want to use more memory than we have. */ if (sysctl_overcommit_memory) return 1; free =

Re: 2.4.4 kernel freeze for unknown reason

Hi Mike, On Sat, 12 May 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote: > Why do I not see this behavior with a heavy swap throughput test > load? It seems decidedly odd to me that swapspace should remain > allocated on other folks lightly loaded boxen given that my heavily > loaded box does release swapspace quite

[Patch] Do not account shmem pages to the page cache

ree += nr_swap_pages; diff -uNr 2.4.4-mSsu/mm/shmem.c 2.4.4-mSsua/mm/shmem.c --- 2.4.4-mSsu/mm/shmem.c Fri May 4 21:37:34 2001 +++ 2.4.4-mSsua/mm/shmem.c Mon May 7 11:13:27 2001 @@ -3,7 +3,8 @@ * * Copyright (C) 2000 Linus Torvalds. * 2000 Transmeta Corp. - *

[Resend] Collection of tmpfs patches

Hi, There is some confusion about my latest tmpfs fixes. There were three patches which are cummulative against 2.4.4: 1) deadlock fix for write out of mmap regions. (AFAIK this is integrated in the -ac kernels) 2) encapsulate access to shmem_inode_info 3) Do inline symlinks I attach all the

[Patch] inline symlinks for tmpfs

Hi David, On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, David L. Parsley wrote: >> OK I will do that for tmpfs soon. And I will do the symlink >> inlining with that patch. OK, here comes the patch for the symlink inlining. It is on top of my previous patch to encapsulate access to the private inode info. Greetings

[Patch] encapsulate shmem access to shmem_inode_info

Hi, On 24 Apr 2001, Christoph Rohland wrote: > Hi Al, > > On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Alexander Viro wrote: >> So yes, IMO having such patches available _is_ a good thing. And in >> 2.5 we definitely want them in the tree. If encapsulation part gets >> there during 2.4

Re: tmpfs doesn't update free memory stats?

Hi Jacek, On Fri, 4 May 2001, Jacek Kopecky wrote: > I'm not in the list, please cc your replies to me. > After upgrading to 2.4.4 I started using tmpfs for /tmp and I > noticed a strange behavior: > > dd if=/dev/zero of=blah bs=1024 count=102400 > # increased my used swap space by appr

Re: [Patch] deadlock on write in tmpfs

Hi Stephen, On Tue, 1 May 2001, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote: > If the locking is for a completely different reason, then a > different semaphore is quite appropriate. In this case you're > trying to lock the shm internal info structures, which is quite > different from the sort of inode locking whi

[Patch] deadlock on write in tmpfs

Hi Linus and Stephen, tmpfs deadlocks when writing into a file from a mapping of the same file. The problem is the following: - shmem_file_write may call shmem_no_page and calls shmem_getpage_locked later, - shmem_no_page calls shmem_getpage_locked - shmem_getpage_locked may call shmem_write

Re: 2.4 and 2GB swap partition limit

Hi Alan, On Mon, 30 Apr 2001, Alan Cox wrote: >> paging in just released 2.4.4, but in previuos kernel, a page that >> was paged-out, reserves its place in swap even if it is paged-in >> again, so once you have paged-out all your ram at least once, you >> can't get any more memory, even if swap i

Re: ramdisk/tmpfs/ramfs/memfs ?

Hi Padraig, On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Padraig Brady wrote: > I don't have swap so don't need tmpfs, but could probably > use it anyway without a backing store? Yes, it does not need backing store. > Anyway why was ramfs created if tmpfs existed, unless tmpfs requires > backing store? They both see

Re: ramdisk/tmpfs/ramfs/memfs ?

On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> > tmpfs is basically ramfs with limits. >> > >> >> ... and swappable. >> >> -hpa > > Hmmm and what's shmfs? Precedessor of tmpfs? Yes. > I even cant remember which one I use for /tmp ;-) You can mount tmpfs also with type "shm" for compatibil

Re: ramdisk/tmpfs/ramfs/memfs ?

Hi Padraig, On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Padraig Brady wrote: > 2. Is tmpfs is basically swap and /tmp together in a ramdisk? >The advantage being you need to reserve less RAM for both >together than seperately? tmpfs is ramfs+swap+limits. It is not using ramdisks and is not related to them. >

Re: hundreds of mount --bind mountpoints?

Hi Andreas, On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Andreas Dilger wrote: > On the other hand, sockets and shmem are both relatively large... shmem is only large because the union is large. I introduced the direct swap array of size SHMEM_NR_DIRECT simply to take advantage of the union. We can decrease SHMEM_NR_DI

Re: shm_open doesn't work (fix maybe).

Hi, On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 11:46:20AM -0500, Tom Brusehaver (N-Sysdyne > Corporation) wrote: >> >> I have been chasing all around trying to find out why >> shm_open always returns ENOSYS. It is implemented >> in glibc-2.2.2, and seems the 2.4.3 kernel

Re: hundreds of mount --bind mountpoints?

Hi Al, On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Alexander Viro wrote: > So yes, IMO having such patches available _is_ a good thing. And in > 2.5 we definitely want them in the tree. If encapsulation part gets > there during 2.4 and separate allocation is available for all of > them it will be easier to do without P

Re: hundreds of mount --bind mountpoints?

Hi Al, On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Alexander Viro wrote: >> Half an hour? If it takes more than about 5 minutes for JFFS2 I'd >> be very surprised. > > What's stopping you? > You _are_ JFFS maintainer, aren't you? So is this the start to change all filesystems in 2.4? I am not sure we should do that

Re: hundreds of mount --bind mountpoints?

Hi Alexander, On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, Alexander Viro wrote: >> I like it. ext2fs does the same, so there should be no VFS >> hassles involved. Al? > > We should get ext2 and friends to move the sucker _out_ of struct > inode. As it is, sizeof(struct inode) is way too large. This is 2.5 > stuff, bu

Re: hundreds of mount --bind mountpoints?

Hi Ingo, On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, Ingo Oeser wrote: > On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 01:43:27PM +0200, Christoph Rohland wrote: >> On Sun, 22 Apr 2001, David L. Parsley wrote: >> > attach packages inside it. Since symlinks in a tmpfs filesystem >> > cost 4k each (ouch!), I'

Re: hundreds of mount --bind mountpoints?

Hi David, On Sun, 22 Apr 2001, David L. Parsley wrote: > I'm still working on a packaging system for diskless > (quasi-embedded) devices. The root filesystem is all tmpfs, and I > attach packages inside it. Since symlinks in a tmpfs filesystem > cost 4k each (ouch!), I'm considering using mount

Re: [NEED TESTERS] remove swapin_readahead Re: shmem_getpage_locked() / swapin_readahead() race in 2.4.4-pre3

Hi Stephen, On Tue, 17 Apr 2001, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote: > I don't see the problem. shmem_getpage_locked appears to back off > correctly if it encounters a swap-cached page already existing if > swapin_readahead has installed the page first, at least with the > code in 2.4.3-ac5. But the swap

Re: shmem_getpage_locked() / swapin_readahead() race in 2.4.4-pre3

Hi, On Sat, 14 Apr 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > There is a nasty race between shmem_getpage_locked() and > swapin_readahead() with the new shmem code (introduced in 2.4.3-ac3 > and merged in the main tree in 2.4.4-pre3): > > shmem_getpage_locked() finds a page in the swapcache and moves it to

Re: 2.4.3-ac2 -- How do I determine if shm is being used?

Hi Miles, On Sat, 07 Apr 2001, Miles Lane wrote: > I have mounted: > > none on /var/shm type shm (rw) Not necessary any more. > tmpfs on /dev/shm type tmpfs (rw) Also not necessary, but recommended for POSIX shm. BTW it will not work with Linus' kernel. Type "shm" is supported by

Re: tmpfs in 2.4.3 and AC

On Fri, 30 Mar 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > tmpfs (or shmfs or whatever name you like) is still different in > official series (2.4.3) and in ac series. Its a kick in the ass for > multiboot, as offcial 2.4.3 does not recognise 'tmpfs' in fstab: > > shmfs /dev/shmtmpfs ... Use typ

Re: [PATCH] Fix races in 2.4.2-ac22 SysV shared memory

Hi Stephen, On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote: > @@ -234,11 +243,11 @@ > return -ENOMEM; > } > > - spin_lock(&info->lock); > - shmem_recalc_inode(page->mapping->host); > entry = shmem_swp_entry(info, page->index); > if (IS_ERR(entry)) /* this

Re: tmpfs: a way to get your system down

Hi Alex, On Sat, 24 Mar 2001, Alex Riesen wrote: > just hit by tmpfs on 2.4.2-ac20 > > mount -t tmpfs mnt > dd if=/dev/zero mnt/tmpfile > > resulted in hardly slowed system and lockup, > and not in "No space left on device", as expected. Use mount option "size". The default is unlimited... Gr

Re: 2.4 and 2GB swap partition limit

Hi Matt, On Sun, 4 Mar 2001, Matt Domsch wrote: > My concern is that if there continues to be a 2GB swap > partition/file size limitation, and you can have (as currently > #defined) 8 swap partitions, you're limited to 16GB swap, which then > follows a max of 8GB RAM. We'd like to sell servers w

Re: Kernel is unstable

Hi Linus, On 1 Mar 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Note how do_brk() does the merging itself (see the comment "Can we > just expand an old anonymous mapping?"), and that it's basically > free when done that way, with no worries about locking etc. The same > could be done fairly trivially in mmap to

[Patch] make file times work in tmpfs

Hi Alan, here is a patch that makes the different file timestamps work on tmpfs. Greetings Christoph --- mac10/mm/shmem.c.orig Wed Feb 14 14:39:46 2001 +++ mac10/mm/shmem.cWed Feb 14 15:30:09 2001 @@ -160,6 +160,7 @@ swp_entry_t **base, **ptr, **last; s

[Patch] correct tmpfs link count for directories

Hi Alan, The attached patch makes tmpfs behave more like other fs's. Apparently perl expects this. Greetings Christoph diff -uNr 2.4.1-ac10/mm/shmem.c 2.4.1-ac10-nlink/mm/shmem.c --- 2.4.1-ac10/mm/shmem.c Mon Feb 12 15:01:47 2001 +++ 2.4.1-ac10-nlink/mm/shmem.c Tue Feb 13

Re: Linux 2.2.19pre10

Hi Alan, On Tue, 13 Feb 2001, Alan Cox wrote: >> Yes, I understand that. But I never got any note that my fix is >> broken and I still do not understand what's the concern. > > Unless Im misreading the code the segment you poke at has > potentially been freed before it is written too. Oh yes I

Re: Linux 2.2.19pre10

Hi Alan, On Tue, 13 Feb 2001, Alan Cox wrote: >> No, I do not think that it's minor. We had to bring down running >> application servers to be able to start another one, because the >> new one couldn't create or attach the systemwide os-monitoring >> segment and thus refused to start. That's very

Re: Linux 2.2.19pre10

Hi Alan, On Mon, 12 Feb 2001, Alan Cox wrote: >> First, I'm glad I wasn't hallucinating, and that the mail did >> indeed get seen by someone. >> >> Second, instead of reverting, can't we simply move those two lines >> up a bit: > > Possibly but its a minor item that doesnt really matter anyway s

Re: shared memory problem

Hi Admin, On Mon, 12 Feb 2001, Admin Mailing Lists wrote: > > I've been using the 2.2.x series successfully, latest i used was > 2.2.19pre7. Today i upgraded to 2.4.1-ac9 and noticed that shared > memory shows 0. I searched the list archive briefly and someone > said the stats have been broken

Re: tmpfs swapoff oddity

Hi Mike, On Thu, 8 Feb 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote: > Hi Christoph, > > While testing Jens' loop-4 patch (and not being able to find > any way to lock it up), I stumbled onto a strange behavior. > > I set up an interleaved swap with one swap partition, and one > swapfile in a loopback mounted re

Re: /dev/shm mount visible

On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Just a little question. In previous kernels and shm patches the > /dev/shm filesytem was invisible under a 'mount' query (just managed > like procfs or devpts). mount does always show all mounted fses. I asume you mean df. > Now it appears listed u

Re: VM question (ramfs abuse)

Hi Paul, On Mon, 5 Feb 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Christoph Rohland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on Sun Feb 04, 2001 [10:53:26 AM] said: > @>Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > @>> I finally managed to coax the cursor over to mutt and quit it. Then things > @&

Re: [patch] make tmpfs_statfs more user friendly

Hi Andreas, On Mon, 5 Feb 2001, Andreas Dilger wrote: >> diff -uNr 2.4.1-tmpfs/mm/shmem.c 2.4.1-tmpfs-fstat/mm/shmem.c >> --- 2.4.1-tmpfs/mm/shmem.c Sun Feb 4 16:08:57 2001 >> +++ 2.4.1-tmpfs-fstat/mm/shmem.c Sun Feb 4 16:09:50 2001 >> @@ -696,13 +696,20 @@ >> buf->f_type = TMPFS_MAG

Re: [patch] make tmpfs_statfs more user friendly

Christoph Rohland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The following patch make shmem_statfs report some sensible size > estimates in the case that the user does not give a size limit. > > This should make it more error prone when used as /tmp Oh well, Lar

[patch] 2.4.1-tmpfs-2

Hi, this is my second version of tmpfs against 2.4.1. It adds more resonable reporting on statfs when there is no size limit given. Have fun Christoph diff -uNr 2.4.1/Documentation/Changes 2.4.1-tmpfs-fstat/Documentation/Changes --- 2.4.1/Documentation/Changes Tue Jan 30 11:06:

[patch] make tmpfs_statfs more user friendly

Hi Alan, The following patch make shmem_statfs report some sensible size estimates in the case that the user does not give a size limit. This should make it more error prone when used as /tmp Greetings Christoph diff -uNr 2.4.1-tmpfs/mm/shmem.c 2.4.1-tmpfs-fstat/mm/shmem.c ---

Re: [patch?] RAMFS

Mike Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > However, tmpfs appears to cover the functionality provided by ramfs. > Are there any uses for ramfs which can't be handled by tmpfs? Nothing I know of. > The only thing I could think of was "what if you don't have a > swap device up and running". Se

Re: [patch] tmpfs for 2.4.1

"J . A . Magallon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > There was a post recently (that now I can't find), that said the shm > management was done with an interal fs. Was that Posix or sysv shm ? SYSV shm and shared anonymous mappings are using a kern_mount of shm/tmpfs. So the CONFIG_TMPFS does only m

Re: [patch] tmpfs for 2.4.1

"H. Peter Anvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Do you need it for POSIX shm or not... if so, I would say you do need it > (even if it's going to take some time until POSIX shm becomes widely > used.) Yes, you need it. glibc 2.2 will search for a shm fs on shm_open. And without it fails. And the

Re: [patch] tmpfs for 2.4.1

"J . A . Magallon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I did not get the chance to deal too much with it, but apart from moving > functionality from userspace (ipcs) to kernel (ls), what were/could be the > benefits of /dev/shm ?. Can you create a shared memory segment by simply > creating a file there

Re: [patch] tmpfs for 2.4.1

"H. Peter Anvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Mm, does this mean that mounting /dev/shm is no more needed ? > > One step more towards easy 2.2 <-> 2.4 switching... Yes, it is no longer needed. You will need for POSIX shm, but there are not a lot of program out there using it. > In some w

Re: [patch] tmpfs for 2.4.1

"H. Peter Anvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > What happened with this being a management tool for shared memory > segments?! Unfortunately we lost this ability in the 2.4.0-test series. SYSV shm now works only on an internal mounted instance and does not link the directory entry to the deleted

[patch] tmpfs for 2.4.1

Hi, here is the latest version of my tmpfs patch against 2.4.1 Have fun Christoph diff -uNr 2.4.1/Documentation/Changes 2.4.1-tmpfs/Documentation/Changes --- 2.4.1/Documentation/Changes Tue Jan 30 11:06:59 2001 +++ 2.4.1-tmpfs/Documentation/Changes Thu Feb 1 22:04:13 2001 @@

[Patch] rename swapfs to tmpfs against 2.4.1-ac1

Hi Alan, I decided to rename swapfs to tmpfs for administration but to call it virtual memory fs in Documentation. Further on the wine people asked me to export shmem_file_setup. The attached patch does this an updates the docu. Greetings Christoph diff -uNr 2.4.1-ac1/Document

Re: set_page_dirty/page_launder deadlock

Hi Linus, On Sun, 14 Jan 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Well, as the new shm code doesn't return 1 any more, the whole > locked page handling should just be deleted. ramfs always just > re-marked the page dirty in its own "writepage()" function, so it > was only shmfs that ever returned this speci

Re: VM subsystem bug in 2.4.0 ?

Hi Rik, On Wed, 17 Jan 2001, Rik van Riel wrote: > I don't even want to start thinking about how this would > screw up the (already fragile) page aging balance... As of 2.4.1-pre we pin the pages by increasing the page count for locked segments. No special list needed. Greetings

[patch2] swapfs fixes against ac9

Hi Alan, On 16 Jan 2001, Christoph Rohland wrote: > Hi Alan, > > Here comes a patch for swapfs which has all my fixes against > -ac9. It does the following: > > - Fix IPC_LOCK (also in 2.4.1-pre7) - Do accounting right (Also send > to Linus) - memparse returns unsigned lo

[patch] swapfs fixes against and comments on ac9

Hi Alan, Here comes a patch for swapfs which has all my fixes against -ac9. It does the following: - Fix IPC_LOCK (also in 2.4.1-pre7) - Do accounting right (Also send to Linus) - memparse returns unsigned long long (Also send to Linus) - Fix the unresolved symbols w/o CONFIG_SWAPFS - Introduce

[Patch2] shmem fixes for 2.4.1-pre7

On 16 Jan 2001, Christoph Rohland wrote: > Here is a patch against 2.4.1-pre7 which > > 1) Adds prototype for shmem_lock to mm.h > 2) Again brings the fixes for the accounting. I still think it >should be applied. And of course the prototype should be exter

[Patch] shmem fixes for 2.4.1-pre7

Hi Linus, Here is a patch against 2.4.1-pre7 which 1) Adds prototype for shmem_lock to mm.h 2) Again brings the fixes for the accounting. I still think it should be applied. Greetings Christoph diff -uNr 1-pre7/include/linux/mm.h m1-pre7/include/linux/mm.h --- 1-pre7/include

Re: Bug in swapfs (2.4.0-ac9)

Hi Gregor, On Mon, 15 Jan 2001, Gregor Jasny wrote: > I think I've found a bug in swapfs: > > fstab: > swapfs /dev/shmswapfs defaults 0 0 > swapfs /tmpswapfs defaults 0 0 > > When I hit on a tar.gz file in Midnight Commander nothing > happens. If I do a umonut /t

Re: [Patch] memparse should return long long

Hi Randy, On Mon, 15 Jan 2001, Randy Dunlap wrote: > Why not (?): Because I did not need it (always used #G or #M) and did not know the function. But it's apparently correct to use simple_strtoull. >> diff -uNr 2.4.0-ac/lib/cmdline.c 2.4.0-ac-memparse/lib/cmdline.c >> --- 2.4.0-ac/lib/cmdline.c

Re: linmodem????

Hi Alan, On 15 Jan 2001, Alan Shutko wrote: > http://walbran.org/sean/linux/stodolsk/ > > Haven't tried it, but it claims to work. Works for me. Greetings Christoph - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PRO

[Patch] memparse should return long long

Hi, The following patch lets memparse return a long long. This is needed to use mem= on highmem machines. Greetings Christoph diff -uNr 2.4.0-ac/arch/i386/kernel/setup.c 2.4.0-ac-memparse/arch/i386/kernel/setup.c --- 2.4.0-ac/arch/i386/kernel/setup.c Tue Jan 2 21:57:54 2001 +

Re: SetPageDirty in shmem_nopage

Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 14 Jan 2001, Christoph Rohland wrote: > Why do you increment the use counter at all in nopage? First to be able to limit the overall number of pages used by the filesystem and second to have the right value for the number of block

Re: shmem or swapfs? was: [Patch] make shm filesystem part configurable

Dominik Kubla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Well, it's tmpfs not only on SUN but for *BSD too. So i guess we should > follow the pack and use this name to avoid yet another "it's called this > under that Unix and this under the other and something else under Linux" > case. So does *BSD also hav

SetPageDirty in shmem_nopage

Hi Linus, While playing with the shmem read/write support I realised that the accounting for shmem is broken: Since we do not mark the page dirty at allocation time the vm can drop it at any time as long as it is not written to. But shmem never adjusts its accounting to that and will happily inc

Re: shmem or swapfs? was: [Patch] make shm filesystem part configurable

Hi Albert, "Albert D. Cahalan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Admins already know what "tmpfs" means, so you should just call > your filesystem that. I know it isn't a pretty name, but in the > interest of reducing confusion, you should use the existing name. > > Don't think of it as just "for /

Re: Linux 2.4.0-ac9

Steven Cole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Here is a little patch which also fixes the symptoms of the build > problem, and makes a kernel 1510 bytes smaller (without > CONFIG_SWAPFS). Someone more knowlegable than I will have to verify > its correctness. Thanks, this is correct. I did not test

[Patch] symlink fix for shm/swap fs

Hi Alan, Here comes a patch which fixes the totally broken symlink support in shm/swapfs. It is additional to my former patches for read and write support. It survives now a parallel kernel make on my 8way. Greetings Christoph diff -uNr 2.4.0-shm_vm_locked-truncate-rw-swapfs/mm

Re: shmem or swapfs? was: [Patch] make shm filesystem part configurable

David Ford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hmm, ok, what are the activities that use this other than shm? You can e.g. use it for your /tmp filesystem. there seem to be some people out there which used ramfs for that... What do you think about "vmfs"? This probably reflects its nature better than

[patch] symlink creation broken in shmem.c

Hi Linus, The shmem_symlink function is completely broken in 2.4.0 and never worked. This patch removes the function from 2.4.0 Greetings Christoph P.S.: For those which test read/write support patch: I will post patch for my swapfs soon which will make it working on top

Re: shmem or swapfs? was: [Patch] make shm filesystem part configurable

David Ford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Now...is this shared memory or swap? If it's swap, why is it > different than a swapfile? If you are intending the shmem be called > swapfs, I personally thing that it'll cause a significant amount of > confusion. It is a filesystem which lives in RAM a

[Patch] read/write support for shm fs

Hi Alan, Here is a patch which makes the shm fs a full swappable file system like Solaris' tmpfs. Does anybody have a really good fs check tool? Not benchmarking, but concurrent truncate, read, write, unlink stress test. Would be good to test it with that. I did my usual POSIX/SYSV shm tests whi

[Patch] make shm filesystem part configurable

Hi, The appended patch (additional to my read/write support patch) makes the shm filesystem configurable and renames it to the more sensible name swapfs. Since the fs type "shm" is quite established with 2.4 I register that name also. It also updates the documentation. Greetings

Re: Strange umount problem in latest 2.4.0 kernels

On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Same cam be applied to shm ? Thus kernel Documentation/Changes > should be changed: [...] > > none/dev/shmshm defaults0 0 > > to > > shm/dev/shmshm defaults0 0 > Yes, I thought that I changed that :-( I al

[Patch] shmem truncate optimizations and cleanup

Hi Alan, The appended patch speeds up the truncate logic of shmem.c considerably and makes it more readable. Would you apply it to your -ac series? I will go on with some cache lookup optimizations and probably read/write support. Greetings Christoph diff -uNr 4-13-5/include/

Re: VM subsystem bug in 2.4.0 ?

Hi Linus, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'd really like an opinion on whether this is truly legal or not? After > all, it does change the behaviour to mean "pages are locked only if they > have been mapped into virtual memory". Which is not what it used to mean. > > Arguably the

Re: VM subsystem bug in 2.4.0 ?

Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote: > > > > But again, how do you clear the bit? Locking is a per-vma property, > > not per-page. I can mmap a file twice and mlock just one of the > > mappings. If you get a munlock(), how are you to know

Re: VM subsystem bug in 2.4.0 ?

Hi Stephen, On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote: > D'oh, right --- so can't you lock a segment just by bumping > page_count on its pages? Looks like a good idea. Oh, and my last posting was partly bogus: I can directly get the pages with page cache lookups on the file. Greetings

Re: VM subsystem bug in 2.4.0 ?

Hi Stephen, On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote: > On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 03:53:55PM +0100, Christoph Rohland wrote: >> It's worse: The issue we are talking about is SYSV IPC_LOCK. > > The issue is locked VA pages. SysV is just one of the ways in which > it c

Re: VM subsystem bug in 2.4.0 ?

Hi Stephen, On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote: > But again, how do you clear the bit? Locking is a per-vma property, > not per-page. I can mmap a file twice and mlock just one of the > mappings. If you get a munlock(), how are you to know how many > other locked mappings still exist

Re: VM subsystem bug in 2.4.0 ?

Hi Rik, On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Rik van Riel wrote: > And when the bit changes again, the page can be evicted > from memory just fine. In the mean time, the locked pages > will also have undergone normal page aging and at unlock > time we know whether to swap out the page or not. > > I agree that thi

Re: Patch (repost): cramfs memory corruption fix

Hi Alan, On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Alan Cox wrote: > I have been thinking about this. I think we should merge the size > limiting code with the example clean ramfs code. Having spent a > while debugging the LFS checks and some other funnies I realised one > problem with the ramfs in 2.4.0 as an example

  1   2   >