Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 18:36:34 -0700
> Ethan Solomita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Add a dirty map to struct address_space
>
> I get a tremendous number of rejects trying to wedge this stuff on top of
> Peter's mm-dirty-balancing-for-tasks ch
Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
>>> + mutex_lock(_mutex);
>>> + *cs_int = val;
>>> + mutex_unlock(_mutex);
>> I don't think this locking does anything?
>
> Locking is wrong here. The lock needs to be taken before the cs pointer
> is dereferenced from
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 18:36:34 -0700
Ethan Solomita [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Add a dirty map to struct address_space
I get a tremendous number of rejects trying to wedge this stuff on top of
Peter's mm-dirty-balancing-for-tasks changes. More rejects than I am
prepared
Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
+ mutex_lock(callback_mutex);
+ *cs_int = val;
+ mutex_unlock(callback_mutex);
I don't think this locking does anything?
Locking is wrong here. The lock needs to be taken before the cs pointer
is dereferenced from
start synchrononous writeout.
Both variables are set to -1 by default which means that the global
limits (/proc/sys/vm/vm_dirty_ratio and /proc/sys/vm/dirty_background_ratio)
are used for a cpuset.
Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Acked-by: Ethan Solomita <[EMAIL
work during synchrononous reclaim and not from kswapd.
Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Acked-by: Ethan Solomita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
Patch against 2.6.23-rc4-mm1
diff -uprN -X 0/Documentation/dontdiff 4/include/linux/writeback.h
5/include/linux/writeback.h
-
processor
counters for each processor on each invocation of get_dirty_limits().
We now add per node information which I think is equal or less effort
since there are less nodes than processors.
Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: Ethan Solomita <[EMAIL
TED]>
Acked-by: Ethan Solomita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
Patch against 2.6.23-rc4-mm1
diff -uprN -X 0/Documentation/dontdiff 3/mm/vmscan.c 4/mm/vmscan.c
--- 3/mm/vmscan.c 2007-09-11 14:41:56.0 -0700
+++ 4/mm/vmscan.c 2007-09-11 14:50:41.0 -0700
@@ -1301,7 +1301,8
structure.
Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Acked-by: Ethan Solomita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
Patch against 2.6.23-rc4-mm1
diff -uprN -X 0/Documentation/dontdiff 1/fs/buffer.c 2/fs/buffer.c
--- 1/fs/buffer.c 2007-09-11 14:36:24.0 -0700
+++ 2/fs/buffer.c
Acked-by: Ethan Solomita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
Patch against 2.6.23-rc4-mm1
diff -uprN -X 0/Documentation/dontdiff 0/fs/buffer.c 1/fs/buffer.c
--- 0/fs/buffer.c 2007-09-11 14:35:58.0 -0700
+++ 1/fs/buffer.c 2007-09-11 14:36:24.0 -0700
@@ -41,6 +41,7 @@
#includ
Perform writeback and dirty throttling with awareness of cpuset mem_allowed.
The theory of operation has two primary elements:
1. Add a nodemask per mapping which indicates the nodes
which have set PageDirty on any page of the mappings.
2. Add a nodemask argument to wakeup_pdflush() which is
Perform writeback and dirty throttling with awareness of cpuset mem_allowed.
The theory of operation has two primary elements:
1. Add a nodemask per mapping which indicates the nodes
which have set PageDirty on any page of the mappings.
2. Add a nodemask argument to wakeup_pdflush() which is
-by: Ethan Solomita [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Patch against 2.6.23-rc4-mm1
diff -uprN -X 0/Documentation/dontdiff 0/fs/buffer.c 1/fs/buffer.c
--- 0/fs/buffer.c 2007-09-11 14:35:58.0 -0700
+++ 1/fs/buffer.c 2007-09-11 14:36:24.0 -0700
@@ -41,6 +41,7 @@
#include linux/bitops.h
structure.
Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Acked-by: Ethan Solomita [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Patch against 2.6.23-rc4-mm1
diff -uprN -X 0/Documentation/dontdiff 1/fs/buffer.c 2/fs/buffer.c
--- 1/fs/buffer.c 2007-09-11 14:36:24.0 -0700
+++ 2/fs/buffer.c 2007-09-11 14
processor
counters for each processor on each invocation of get_dirty_limits().
We now add per node information which I think is equal or less effort
since there are less nodes than processors.
Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Ethan Solomita [EMAIL PROTECTED
]
Acked-by: Ethan Solomita [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Patch against 2.6.23-rc4-mm1
diff -uprN -X 0/Documentation/dontdiff 3/mm/vmscan.c 4/mm/vmscan.c
--- 3/mm/vmscan.c 2007-09-11 14:41:56.0 -0700
+++ 4/mm/vmscan.c 2007-09-11 14:50:41.0 -0700
@@ -1301,7 +1301,8 @@ unsigned long
work during synchrononous reclaim and not from kswapd.
Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Acked-by: Ethan Solomita [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Patch against 2.6.23-rc4-mm1
diff -uprN -X 0/Documentation/dontdiff 4/include/linux/writeback.h
5/include/linux/writeback.h
--- 4/include
start synchrononous writeout.
Both variables are set to -1 by default which means that the global
limits (/proc/sys/vm/vm_dirty_ratio and /proc/sys/vm/dirty_background_ratio)
are used for a cpuset.
Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Acked-by: Ethan Solomita [EMAIL PROTECTED
Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 14:23:14 -0700
> Ethan Solomita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> These patches are mostly unchanged from Chris Lameter's original
>> changelist posted previously to linux-mm.
>
> Thanks for keeping these patches u
Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 14:23:14 -0700
Ethan Solomita [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
These patches are mostly unchanged from Chris Lameter's original
changelist posted previously to linux-mm.
Thanks for keeping these patches up to date. Add you signoff if you
did
start synchrononous writeout.
Both variables are set to -1 by default which means that the global
limits (/proc/sys/vm/vm_dirty_ratio and /proc/sys/vm/dirty_background_ratio)
are used for a cpuset.
Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Acked-by: Ethan Solomita <[EMAIL
work during synchrononous reclaim and not from kswapd.
Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Acked-by: Ethan Solomita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
Patch against 2.6.22-rc6-mm1
diff -uprN -X 0/Documentation/dontdiff 4/include/linux/writeback.h
5/include/linux/writeback.h
-
TED]>
Acked-by: Ethan Solomita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
Patch against 2.6.22-rc6-mm1
diff -uprN -X 0/Documentation/dontdiff 3/mm/vmscan.c 4/mm/vmscan.c
--- 3/mm/vmscan.c 2007-07-11 21:16:14.0 -0700
+++ 4/mm/vmscan.c 2007-07-11 21:16:26.0 -0700
@@ -1183,7 +1183,8
structure.
Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Acked-by: Ethan Solomita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
Patch against 2.6.22-rc6-mm1
diff -uprN -X 0/Documentation/dontdiff 1/fs/buffer.c 2/fs/buffer.c
--- 1/fs/buffer.c 2007-07-11 21:08:04.0 -0700
+++ 2/fs/buffer.c
processor
counters for each processor on each invocation of get_dirty_limits().
We now add per node information which I think is equal or less effort
since there are less nodes than processors.
Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Acked-by: Ethan Solomita <[EMAIL
Acked-by: Ethan Solomita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
Patch against 2.6.22-rc6-mm1
diff -uprN -X 0/Documentation/dontdiff 0/fs/buffer.c 1/fs/buffer.c
--- 0/fs/buffer.c 2007-07-11 20:30:55.0 -0700
+++ 1/fs/buffer.c 2007-07-11 21:08:04.0 -0700
@@ -41,6 +41,7 @@
#includ
Perform writeback and dirty throttling with awareness of cpuset mem_allowed.
The theory of operation has two primary elements:
1. Add a nodemask per mapping which indicates the nodes
which have set PageDirty on any page of the mappings.
2. Add a nodemask argument to wakeup_pdflush() which is
Perform writeback and dirty throttling with awareness of cpuset mem_allowed.
The theory of operation has two primary elements:
1. Add a nodemask per mapping which indicates the nodes
which have set PageDirty on any page of the mappings.
2. Add a nodemask argument to wakeup_pdflush() which is
-by: Ethan Solomita [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Patch against 2.6.22-rc6-mm1
diff -uprN -X 0/Documentation/dontdiff 0/fs/buffer.c 1/fs/buffer.c
--- 0/fs/buffer.c 2007-07-11 20:30:55.0 -0700
+++ 1/fs/buffer.c 2007-07-11 21:08:04.0 -0700
@@ -41,6 +41,7 @@
#include linux/bitops.h
structure.
Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Acked-by: Ethan Solomita [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Patch against 2.6.22-rc6-mm1
diff -uprN -X 0/Documentation/dontdiff 1/fs/buffer.c 2/fs/buffer.c
--- 1/fs/buffer.c 2007-07-11 21:08:04.0 -0700
+++ 2/fs/buffer.c 2007-07-11 21
processor
counters for each processor on each invocation of get_dirty_limits().
We now add per node information which I think is equal or less effort
since there are less nodes than processors.
Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Acked-by: Ethan Solomita [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Patch
]
Acked-by: Ethan Solomita [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Patch against 2.6.22-rc6-mm1
diff -uprN -X 0/Documentation/dontdiff 3/mm/vmscan.c 4/mm/vmscan.c
--- 3/mm/vmscan.c 2007-07-11 21:16:14.0 -0700
+++ 4/mm/vmscan.c 2007-07-11 21:16:26.0 -0700
@@ -1183,7 +1183,8 @@ unsigned long
work during synchrononous reclaim and not from kswapd.
Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Acked-by: Ethan Solomita [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Patch against 2.6.22-rc6-mm1
diff -uprN -X 0/Documentation/dontdiff 4/include/linux/writeback.h
5/include/linux/writeback.h
--- 4/include
start synchrononous writeout.
Both variables are set to -1 by default which means that the global
limits (/proc/sys/vm/vm_dirty_ratio and /proc/sys/vm/dirty_background_ratio)
are used for a cpuset.
Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Acked-by: Ethan Solomita [EMAIL PROTECTED
Christoph Lameter wrote:
>
> This may be a leftover from earlier times when the logic was different in
> throttle vm writeout?
Sorry -- my merge error when looking at an earlier kernel, no issue
with mainline or -mm.
-- Ethan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
Christoph -- I have a question about one part of the patches. In
throttle_vm_writeout() you added a clause that checks for __GFP_FS |
__GFP_IO and if they're not both set it calls blk_congestion_wait()
immediately and then returns, no change for looping. Two questions:
1. This seems like
Christoph -- I have a question about one part of the patches. In
throttle_vm_writeout() you added a clause that checks for __GFP_FS |
__GFP_IO and if they're not both set it calls blk_congestion_wait()
immediately and then returns, no change for looping. Two questions:
1. This seems like
Christoph Lameter wrote:
This may be a leftover from earlier times when the logic was different in
throttle vm writeout?
Sorry -- my merge error when looking at an earlier kernel, no issue
with mainline or -mm.
-- Ethan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jun 2007, Ethan Solomita wrote:
>
>> I looked over it at one point. Most of the code doesn't conflict, but I
>> believe that the code path which calculates the dirty limits will need
>> some merging. Doable but non-trivial.
>
Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007, Ethan Solomita wrote:
I looked over it at one point. Most of the code doesn't conflict, but I
believe that the code path which calculates the dirty limits will need
some merging. Doable but non-trivial.
-- Ethan
I hope you will keep
Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> One open question is the interaction between these changes and with Peter's
> per-device-dirty-throttling changes. They also are in my queue somewhere.
I looked over it at one point. Most of the code doesn't conflict, but I
believe that the code path which
Andrew Morton wrote:
One open question is the interaction between these changes and with Peter's
per-device-dirty-throttling changes. They also are in my queue somewhere.
I looked over it at one point. Most of the code doesn't conflict, but I
believe that the code path which
Christoph Lameter wrote:
>
> What testing was done? Would you include the results of tests in your next
> post?
Sorry for the delay in responding -- I was chasing phantom failures.
I created a stress test which involved using cpusets and mems_allowed
to split memory so that all
Christoph Lameter wrote:
What testing was done? Would you include the results of tests in your next
post?
Sorry for the delay in responding -- I was chasing phantom failures.
I created a stress test which involved using cpusets and mems_allowed
to split memory so that all
Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Thu, 31 May 2007, Ethan Solomita wrote:
>
>> The dirty map is only cleared (or freed) when the inode is cleared.
>> At that point no pages are attached to the inode anymore and therefore it can
>> be done without any locking. The dirty map the
Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Thu, 31 May 2007, Ethan Solomita wrote:
The dirty map is only cleared (or freed) when the inode is cleared.
At that point no pages are attached to the inode anymore and therefore it can
be done without any locking. The dirty map therefore records all nodes
start synchrononous writeout.
Both variables are set to -1 by default which means that the global
limits (/proc/sys/vm/vm_dirty_ratio and /proc/sys/vm/dirty_background_ratio)
are used for a cpuset.
Originally by Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: Ethan Solomita <[EMAIL
Remove unneeded local variable.
Originally by Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: Ethan Solomita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
diff -uprN -X 0/Documentation/dontdiff 5/mm/page-writeback.c
6/mm/page-writeback.c
--- 5/mm/page-writeback.c 2007-05-30 11:37:01.000
work during synchrononous reclaim and not from kswapd.
Originally by Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: Ethan Solomita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
diff -uprN -X 0/Documentation/dontdiff 4/include/linux/writeback.h
5/include/linux/writeback.h
--- 4/include/linux/writeba
work during synchrononous reclaim and not from kswapd.
Originally by Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: Ethan Solomita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
diff -uprN -X 0/Documentation/dontdiff 4/include/linux/writeback.h
5/include/linux/writeback.h
--- 4/include/linux/writ
TED]>
Signed-off-by: Ethan Solomita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
diff -uprN -X 0/Documentation/dontdiff 3/mm/vmscan.c 4/mm/vmscan.c
--- 3/mm/vmscan.c 2007-05-30 11:34:21.0 -0700
+++ 4/mm/vmscan.c 2007-05-30 11:36:17.0 -0700
@@ -1198,7 +1198,8 @@ unsigned long try_t
processor
counters for each processor on each invocation of get_dirty_limits().
We now add per node information which I think is equal or less effort
since there are less nodes than processors.
Originally by Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: Ethan Solomita <[EMAIL
structure.
Originally by Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: Ethan Solomita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
diff -uprN -X 0/Documentation/dontdiff 1/fs/buffer.c 2/fs/buffer.c
--- 1/fs/buffer.c 2007-05-29 17:44:33.0 -0700
+++ 2/fs/buffer.c 2007-05-30 11:31:22.000
Signed-off-by: Ethan Solomita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
diff -uprN -X 0/Documentation/dontdiff 0/fs/buffer.c 1/fs/buffer.c
--- 0/fs/buffer.c 2007-05-29 17:42:07.0 -0700
+++ 1/fs/buffer.c 2007-05-29 17:44:33.0 -0700
@@ -41,6 +41,7 @@
#include
#include
#includ
-off-by: Ethan Solomita [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
diff -uprN -X 0/Documentation/dontdiff 0/fs/buffer.c 1/fs/buffer.c
--- 0/fs/buffer.c 2007-05-29 17:42:07.0 -0700
+++ 1/fs/buffer.c 2007-05-29 17:44:33.0 -0700
@@ -41,6 +41,7 @@
#include linux/bitops.h
#include linux/mpage.h
start synchrononous writeout.
Both variables are set to -1 by default which means that the global
limits (/proc/sys/vm/vm_dirty_ratio and /proc/sys/vm/dirty_background_ratio)
are used for a cpuset.
Originally by Christoph Lameter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Ethan Solomita [EMAIL PROTECTED
Remove unneeded local variable.
Originally by Christoph Lameter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Ethan Solomita [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
diff -uprN -X 0/Documentation/dontdiff 5/mm/page-writeback.c
6/mm/page-writeback.c
--- 5/mm/page-writeback.c 2007-05-30 11:37:01.0 -0700
+++ 6/mm
structure.
Originally by Christoph Lameter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Ethan Solomita [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
diff -uprN -X 0/Documentation/dontdiff 1/fs/buffer.c 2/fs/buffer.c
--- 1/fs/buffer.c 2007-05-29 17:44:33.0 -0700
+++ 2/fs/buffer.c 2007-05-30 11:31:22.0 -0700
processor
counters for each processor on each invocation of get_dirty_limits().
We now add per node information which I think is equal or less effort
since there are less nodes than processors.
Originally by Christoph Lameter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Ethan Solomita [EMAIL PROTECTED
]
Signed-off-by: Ethan Solomita [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
diff -uprN -X 0/Documentation/dontdiff 3/mm/vmscan.c 4/mm/vmscan.c
--- 3/mm/vmscan.c 2007-05-30 11:34:21.0 -0700
+++ 4/mm/vmscan.c 2007-05-30 11:36:17.0 -0700
@@ -1198,7 +1198,8 @@ unsigned long try_to_free_pages(struct
work during synchrononous reclaim and not from kswapd.
Originally by Christoph Lameter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Ethan Solomita [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
diff -uprN -X 0/Documentation/dontdiff 4/include/linux/writeback.h
5/include/linux/writeback.h
--- 4/include/linux/writeback.h 2007-05-30
work during synchrononous reclaim and not from kswapd.
Originally by Christoph Lameter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Ethan Solomita [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
diff -uprN -X 0/Documentation/dontdiff 4/include/linux/writeback.h
5/include/linux/writeback.h
--- 4/include/linux/writeback.h 2007-05-30
Ethan Solomita wrote:
Trond Myklebust wrote:
It should not happen. If the page is on the unstable list, then it will
be committed before nfs_updatepage is allowed to redirty it. See the
recent fixes in 2.6.21-rc7.
Above I present a codepath called straight from sys_write() which
seems
Trond Myklebust wrote:
On Fri, 2007-04-27 at 18:21 -0700, Ethan Solomita wrote:
There are several places where we add together NR_UNSTABLE_FS and
NF_FILE_DIRTY:
sync_inodes_sb()
balance_dirty_pages()
wakeup_pdflush()
wb_kupdate()
prefetch_suitable()
I can trace a standard codepath where
Trond Myklebust wrote:
On Fri, 2007-04-27 at 18:21 -0700, Ethan Solomita wrote:
There are several places where we add together NR_UNSTABLE_FS and
NF_FILE_DIRTY:
sync_inodes_sb()
balance_dirty_pages()
wakeup_pdflush()
wb_kupdate()
prefetch_suitable()
I can trace a standard codepath where
Ethan Solomita wrote:
Trond Myklebust wrote:
It should not happen. If the page is on the unstable list, then it will
be committed before nfs_updatepage is allowed to redirty it. See the
recent fixes in 2.6.21-rc7.
Above I present a codepath called straight from sys_write() which
seems
There are several places where we add together NR_UNSTABLE_FS and
NF_FILE_DIRTY:
sync_inodes_sb()
balance_dirty_pages()
wakeup_pdflush()
wb_kupdate()
prefetch_suitable()
I can trace a standard codepath where it seems both of these are set
on the same page:
nfs_file_aops.commit_write ->
There are several places where we add together NR_UNSTABLE_FS and
NF_FILE_DIRTY:
sync_inodes_sb()
balance_dirty_pages()
wakeup_pdflush()
wb_kupdate()
prefetch_suitable()
I can trace a standard codepath where it seems both of these are set
on the same page:
nfs_file_aops.commit_write -
Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007, Ethan Solomita wrote:
cpuset_write_dirty_map.htm
In __set_page_dirty_nobuffers() you always call cpuset_update_dirty_nodes()
but in __set_page_dirty_buffers() you call it only if page->mapping is still
set after locking. Is there a rea
Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007, Ethan Solomita wrote:
cpuset_write_dirty_map.htm
In __set_page_dirty_nobuffers() you always call cpuset_update_dirty_nodes()
but in __set_page_dirty_buffers() you call it only if page-mapping is still
set after locking. Is there a reason
Christoph Lameter wrote:
H Sorry. I got distracted and I have sent them to Kame-san who was
interested in working on them.
I have placed the most recent version at
http://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/christoph/cpuset_dirty
Hi Christoph -- a few comments on the
Christoph Lameter wrote:
H Sorry. I got distracted and I have sent them to Kame-san who was
interested in working on them.
I have placed the most recent version at
http://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/christoph/cpuset_dirty
Hi Christoph -- a few comments on the
Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007, Ethan Solomita wrote:
Any new ETA? I'm trying to decide whether to go back to your original
patches or wait for the new set. Adding new knobs isn't as important to me as
having something that fixes the core problem, so hopefully this isn't
Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007, Ethan Solomita wrote:
Any new ETA? I'm trying to decide whether to go back to your original
patches or wait for the new set. Adding new knobs isn't as important to me as
having something that fixes the core problem, so hopefully this isn't
Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Ethan Solomita wrote:
Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, Ethan Solomita wrote:
Hi Christoph -- has anything come of resolving the NFS / OOM concerns
that
Andrew Morton expressed concerning the patch? I'd be happy
Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Ethan Solomita wrote:
Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, Ethan Solomita wrote:
Hi Christoph -- has anything come of resolving the NFS / OOM concerns
that
Andrew Morton expressed concerning the patch? I'd be happy
Maneesh Soni wrote:
> I have modified the previous patch (which was dropped from -mm) and now
> keeping
> the statement making s_dentry as NULL in sysfs_d_iput(), so this should
> _safely_ fix sysfs_readdir() oops.
>
If you could find some additional places in sysfs code to add new
BUG()
Maneesh Soni wrote:
I have modified the previous patch (which was dropped from -mm) and now
keeping
the statement making s_dentry as NULL in sysfs_d_iput(), so this should
_safely_ fix sysfs_readdir() oops.
If you could find some additional places in sysfs code to add new
BUG()
Apologies -- I didn't notice lkml on the cc list. I'll catch up from
lkml directly.
-- Ethan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please
Andreas Mohr wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 10:56:32PM +0400, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
The only suspicious new patch in -rc5-mm1 to me is
fix-sysfs-reclaim-crash.patch which removes "sd->s_dentry = NULL;". Note
that whole sysfs_drop_dentry() is NOP if ->s_dentry is NULL.
Could you try to
Nick Piggin wrote:
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
First touch page ownership does not guarantee give me anything useful
for knowing if I can run my application or not. Because of page
sharing my application might run inside the rss limit only because
I got lucky and happened to share a lot of pages
Nick Piggin wrote:
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
First touch page ownership does not guarantee give me anything useful
for knowing if I can run my application or not. Because of page
sharing my application might run inside the rss limit only because
I got lucky and happened to share a lot of pages
Andreas Mohr wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 10:56:32PM +0400, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
The only suspicious new patch in -rc5-mm1 to me is
fix-sysfs-reclaim-crash.patch which removes sd-s_dentry = NULL;. Note
that whole sysfs_drop_dentry() is NOP if -s_dentry is NULL.
Could you try to
Apologies -- I didn't notice lkml on the cc list. I'll catch up from
lkml directly.
-- Ethan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read
Herbert Poetzl wrote:
On Sat, Mar 24, 2007 at 12:19:06PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
Or change the reclaim code so that a page which hasn't
been referenced from a process within its hardware
container is considered unreferenced (so it gets reclaimed).
that might easily lead to some
Hi Maneesh -- I will start testing with the patch you provided. If you
come up with any further issues please let me know. Also, if you could
suggest some additional BUG() lines that I could insert I would
appreciate it. Since the bug is hard to reproduce, it may be easier to
catch a race
Hi Maneesh -- I will start testing with the patch you provided. If you
come up with any further issues please let me know. Also, if you could
suggest some additional BUG() lines that I could insert I would
appreciate it. Since the bug is hard to reproduce, it may be easier to
catch a race
Herbert Poetzl wrote:
On Sat, Mar 24, 2007 at 12:19:06PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
Or change the reclaim code so that a page which hasn't
been referenced from a process within its hardware
container is considered unreferenced (so it gets reclaimed).
that might easily lead to some
Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, Ethan Solomita wrote:
Hi Christoph -- has anything come of resolving the NFS / OOM concerns that
Andrew Morton expressed concerning the patch? I'd be happy to see some
progress on getting this patch (i.e. the one you posted on 1/23) through
Ping!
-- Ethan
Ethan Solomita wrote:
> Andi Kleen wrote:
>
>> On Monday 12 March 2007 23:51, Ethan Solomita wrote:
>>
>>> This patch corrects inconsistent use of node numbers (variously "nid" or
>>> "node") in the presence
Ping!
-- Ethan
Ethan Solomita wrote:
Andi Kleen wrote:
On Monday 12 March 2007 23:51, Ethan Solomita wrote:
This patch corrects inconsistent use of node numbers (variously nid or
node) in the presence of fake NUMA.
I think it's very consistent -- your patch would
Andi Kleen wrote:
On Monday 12 March 2007 23:51, Ethan Solomita wrote:
This patch corrects inconsistent use of node numbers (variously "nid" or
"node") in the presence of fake NUMA.
I think it's very consistent -- your patch would make it inconsistent though.
It'
ide numa_online_phys() which
is the same as numa_online() but takes a physical node ID.
Change init_cpu_to_node(), x86_64 and PCI code use get_fake_node() and
numa_online_phys() in order to convert to an appropriate fake ID.
Signed-off-by: Ethan Solomita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
arch/i386/
is the same as numa_online() but takes a physical node ID.
Change init_cpu_to_node(), x86_64 and PCI code use get_fake_node() and
numa_online_phys() in order to convert to an appropriate fake ID.
Signed-off-by: Ethan Solomita [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
arch/i386/pci/acpi.c |6 +++
arch
Andi Kleen wrote:
On Monday 12 March 2007 23:51, Ethan Solomita wrote:
This patch corrects inconsistent use of node numbers (variously nid or
node) in the presence of fake NUMA.
I think it's very consistent -- your patch would make it inconsistent though.
It's consistent to call
Hi Christoph -- has anything come of resolving the NFS / OOM
concerns that Andrew Morton expressed concerning the patch? I'd be happy
to see some progress on getting this patch (i.e. the one you posted on
1/23) through.
Thanks,
-- Ethan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
Hi Christoph -- has anything come of resolving the NFS / OOM
concerns that Andrew Morton expressed concerning the patch? I'd be happy
to see some progress on getting this patch (i.e. the one you posted on
1/23) through.
Thanks,
-- Ethan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
97 matches
Mail list logo
