(switched to email. Please respond via emailed reply-to-all, not via the
bugzilla web interface).
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 09:32:30 GMT
bugzilla-dae...@bugzilla.kernel.org wrote:
> http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14150
>
>Summary: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#3 stuck for 61s!, whil
Quoting Oren Laadan (or...@librato.com):
>
> I wonder if it can be useful to decide on a common "format", that
> can be useful in the future for automatic error analysis. E.g:
>
> "[PID %d ERR %d]: .", for error with a specific task, and
> "[PID %d ERR %d OBJ %d]: .." for error with an ob
I don't know if this is "the right thing" to do, or if
there will be special ext4 cases which this doesn't handle,
but all of my cr_tests pass with this patch applied on F11
with an ext4 rootfs (and fail without on trying to checkpoint
a library on ext4fs bc it has its own vm_ops but no
vm_ops->che
I wonder if it can be useful to decide on a common "format", that
can be useful in the future for automatic error analysis. E.g:
"[PID %d ERR %d]: .", for error with a specific task, and
"[PID %d ERR %d OBJ %d]: .." for error with an object, and so on.
Or even a bit more fancy, like:
1. Several .c files to be checkpointed are changed to close all
fds between 0 and 100. On F11, for some reason fds 4 and
5 now point to libnspr4.so, which for some reason doesn't want
to be checkpointed.
2. user-cr now renames mktree to restart, rstr to restart_self, and
Dan Smith wrote:
> OL> Did you also address this ?
>
> Sorry, I meant to put something in the intro mail about this.
>
> OL> [The reason sk_free() expects no sk_socket is because the socket
> OL> at this point must have been released already via
> OL> proto_ops->release(). The callback is assu
Dan Smith wrote:
> OL> I'm unsure why the warning; perhaps you mean "ckpt_debug()" ?
>
> This is just copied from Matt's patch. Feel free to change it when
> you put it in or I can send another one.
>
Nah ... no need to resend.
___
Containers mailin
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 04:55:50PM +0200, Jerome Marchand wrote:
> Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 10:30:40AM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> >> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 03:16:23PM +0200, Jerome Marchand wrote:
> >>> Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 04:52:27PM -0400, Vive
Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 10:30:40AM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 03:16:23PM +0200, Jerome Marchand wrote:
>>> Vivek Goyal wrote:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 04:52:27PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 05:18:25PM +0200, Jerome March
Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 03:16:23PM +0200, Jerome Marchand wrote:
>> Vivek Goyal wrote:
>>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 04:52:27PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 05:18:25PM +0200, Jerome Marchand wrote:
> Vivek Goyal wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> He
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 10:30:40AM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 03:16:23PM +0200, Jerome Marchand wrote:
> > Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 04:52:27PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > >> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 05:18:25PM +0200, Jerome Marchand wrote:
> > >>> V
SH> 'capable' actually has an adverse effect of setting the
SH> PF_SUPERPRIV flag on current. So if I don't misread this, you'll
SH> want to do the length check first, then the capable check, in
SH> order to make sure that PF_SUPERPRIV doesn't get set unless the
SH> privilege was actually needed.
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 03:16:23PM +0200, Jerome Marchand wrote:
> Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 04:52:27PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> >> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 05:18:25PM +0200, Jerome Marchand wrote:
> >>> Vivek Goyal wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Here is the V9 of the IO
OL> Did you also address this ?
Sorry, I meant to put something in the intro mail about this.
OL> [The reason sk_free() expects no sk_socket is because the socket
OL> at this point must have been released already via
OL> proto_ops->release(). The callback is assumed to orphan the
OL> socket].
R
OL> I'm unsure why the warning; perhaps you mean "ckpt_debug()" ?
This is just copied from Matt's patch. Feel free to change it when
you put it in or I can send another one.
--
Dan Smith
IBM Linux Technology Center
email: da...@us.ibm.com
___
Containe
Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 04:52:27PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 05:18:25PM +0200, Jerome Marchand wrote:
>>> Vivek Goyal wrote:
Hi All,
Here is the V9 of the IO controller patches generated on top of 2.6.31-rc7.
>>>
>>> Hi Vivek,
>>>
>>>
On Fri, 2009-09-11 at 16:53 +0530, Dhaval Giani wrote:
> [Adding peterz to the cc]
>
> On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 04:49:52PM +0100, Rolando Martins wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I would like to confirm the following:
> > cpuset.sched_load_balance doesn't work with RT, right?
It does.
> > You cannot have
[Adding the scheduler maintainers to the cc]
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 03:03:22PM +0530, Rishikesh wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am hitting this soft lock issue while running this scenario on
> 2.6.31-rc7 kernel on SystemX 32 bit on multiple machines.
>
> Opened bug : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi
[Adding peterz to the cc]
On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 04:49:52PM +0100, Rolando Martins wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to confirm the following:
> cpuset.sched_load_balance doesn't work with RT, right?
> You cannot have tasks for sub-domain 2 to utilize bandwidth of
> sub-domain 3, right?
>
>
On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 04:00:27PM +0530, Mukesh G wrote:
> Hi,
>I am trying to understand the behavior of CPU containers as I
> am unable to explain few things.
> - Built the latest kernel 2.6.30.5 and installed on my Intel core2Duo desktop
>
> - Mounted the cpu subsystem using
>
>
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 08:32:51PM +0900, Ryo Tsuruta wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> As I have notified before, The 1st Linux IO controller Mini-Summit
> will be held in Tokyo Japan on Oct 17 -- day before the 9th Linux
> kernel summit. So I would like to propose the following topics for
> the mini-summit
On Friday 11 September 2009, Louis Rilling wrote:
> On 11/09/09 12:31 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Thursday 10 September 2009, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote:
> > > Since this is a variant of clone() and clone is listed as a PTREGSCALL(),
> > > I pass in the pt_regs.
> > >
> > > arch/x86/kernel/e
On 11/09/09 12:31 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 10 September 2009, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote:
> > Since this is a variant of clone() and clone is listed as a PTREGSCALL(),
> > I pass in the pt_regs.
> >
> > arch/x86/kernel/entry_32.S lists clone() under this comment:
> >
> > /*
> > *
On Thursday 10 September 2009, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote:
> Since this is a variant of clone() and clone is listed as a PTREGSCALL(),
> I pass in the pt_regs.
>
> arch/x86/kernel/entry_32.S lists clone() under this comment:
>
> /*
> * System calls that need a pt_regs pointer.
> */
>
> Is there
24 matches
Mail list logo
