On 09.09.2015 6:10, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
On Tue, 8 Sep 2015, Sergey Dyasly wrote:
On 08.09.2015 5:45, Zhang Zhen wrote:
The arch-specific IOREMAP_MAX_ORDER is introduced in
commit: ff0daca([ARM] Add section support to ioremap) and
commit: a069c89 ([ARM] 3705/1: add supersection support to
On 08.09.2015 5:45, Zhang Zhen wrote:
The arch-specific IOREMAP_MAX_ORDER is introduced in
commit: ff0daca([ARM] Add section support to ioremap) and
commit: a069c89 ([ARM] 3705/1: add supersection support to ioremap()).
But supersections and sections mappings are only used in !SMP && !LPAE case.
itry Safonov
Link:
https://lkml.kernel.org/g/1419328813-2211-1-git-send-email-d.safo...@partner.samsung.com
Signed-off-by: Sergey Dyasly
---
arch/arm/include/asm/memory.h |2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/memory.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/memory.h
index 184de
Now it's preferable to use for_each_thread() instead of while_each_thread().
Add a check to checkpatch.pl in order to prevent any new usages of the buggy
while_each_thread() when possible.
Cc: Oleg Nesterov
Cc: Andy Whitcroft
Cc: Joe Perches
Signed-off-by: Sergey Dyasly
---
Changes sin
On Sun, 18 Jan 2015 17:27:33 -0800
Joe Perches wrote:
> On Sun, 2015-01-18 at 17:24 +0300, Sergey Dyasly wrote:
> > Now it's preferable to use for_each_thread() instead of while_each_thread().
> > Add a check to checkpatch.pl in order to prevent any new usages of the buggy
&
On Sun, 04 Jan 2015 17:38:06 +0100
Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Saturday 03 January 2015 18:59:46 Sergey Dyasly wrote:
> > Hi Arnd,
> >
> > First, some background information. We originally encountered high
> > fragmentation
> > issue in vmalloc area:
> >
Now it's preferable to use for_each_thread() instead of while_each_thread().
Add a check to checkpatch.pl in order to prevent any new usages of the buggy
while_each_thread() when possible.
Cc: Oleg Nesterov
Cc: Andy Whitcroft
Cc: Joe Perches
Signed-off-by: Sergey Dyasly
---
sc
ded by rmk.
>
> Signed-off-by: Russell King
>
> and then later extended to 16MB supersection mappings, which indeed
> is used to reduce TLB pressure.
>
> I don't see any downsides to it, why change it?
>
> Arnd
--
Sergey Dyasly
--
To unsubscribe
sk->thread_group
> can go away before we change all users of while_each_thread().
>
> David, et al, I din't actually test 2/2, I do not know how. Please
> review, although it looks simple.
The patches look correct and my test case no longer hangs, so
Reviewed-and-Tested
It seems to me that we are going nowhere with this discussion...
If you are ok with the first change in my patch regarding fatal_signal_pending,
I can send new patch with just that change.
On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 15:08:25 -0700 (PDT)
David Rientjes wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Sep 2013, Sergey Dya
On Wed, 25 Sep 2013 13:31:32 -0700 (PDT)
David Rientjes wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Sep 2013, Sergey Dyasly wrote:
>
> > > > /*
> > > > * If this task is not being ptraced on exit, then wait
> > > > for it
> > > >
Ping :)
On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 19:06:05 +0400
Sergey Dyasly wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Sep 2013 13:07:08 -0700 (PDT)
> David Rientjes wrote:
>
> > > /*
> > >* If this task is not being ptraced on exit, then wait for it
> > >* to f
slight chance that victim will become PF_EXITING between
scan and kill.
The only difference is in force_kill flag, and the only case where it's set
is SysRq. And I think in this case OOM killer messages are a good thing to have
even when victim is already exiting, instead of just silence.
--
after victim has been selected.
Signed-off-by: Sergey Dyasly
---
mm/oom_kill.c | 17 +
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/oom_kill.c b/mm/oom_kill.c
index 98e75f2..ef83b81 100644
--- a/mm/oom_kill.c
+++ b/mm/oom_kill.c
@@ -275,13 +275,16 @@ enum
14 matches
Mail list logo
