On Wed, 2014-06-25 at 08:15 +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 04:52:22PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> > On Mon, 23 Jun 2014, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Sat, 21 Jun 2014 11:10:58 +0200 Heiko Carstens
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 02:29:31PM -0700, Andrew
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 04:52:22PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2014, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Sat, 21 Jun 2014 11:10:58 +0200 Heiko Carstens
> > wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 02:29:31PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > I'm unclear on how urgent these fixes are. I
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 04:52:22PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2014, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jun 2014 11:10:58 +0200 Heiko Carstens
heiko.carst...@de.ibm.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 02:29:31PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
I'm unclear on how urgent these
On Wed, 2014-06-25 at 08:15 +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote:
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 04:52:22PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2014, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jun 2014 11:10:58 +0200 Heiko Carstens
heiko.carst...@de.ibm.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 02:29:31PM
On Mon, 23 Jun 2014, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Jun 2014 11:10:58 +0200 Heiko Carstens
> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 02:29:31PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 11:04:50 +0200 Heiko Carstens
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > These two patches are supposed to
On Mon, 23 Jun 2014, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jun 2014 11:10:58 +0200 Heiko Carstens heiko.carst...@de.ibm.com
wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 02:29:31PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 11:04:50 +0200 Heiko Carstens
heiko.carst...@de.ibm.com wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jun 2014 11:10:58 +0200 Heiko Carstens
wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 02:29:31PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 11:04:50 +0200 Heiko Carstens
> > wrote:
> >
> > > These two patches are supposed to "fix" failed order-4 memory
> > > allocations which have been
On Sat, 21 Jun 2014 11:10:58 +0200 Heiko Carstens heiko.carst...@de.ibm.com
wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 02:29:31PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 11:04:50 +0200 Heiko Carstens
heiko.carst...@de.ibm.com wrote:
These two patches are supposed to fix failed order-4
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 02:29:31PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 11:04:50 +0200 Heiko Carstens
> wrote:
>
> > These two patches are supposed to "fix" failed order-4 memory
> > allocations which have been observed when reading /proc/stat.
> > The problem has been observed on
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 02:29:31PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 11:04:50 +0200 Heiko Carstens heiko.carst...@de.ibm.com
wrote:
These two patches are supposed to fix failed order-4 memory
allocations which have been observed when reading /proc/stat.
The problem has
On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 11:04:50 +0200 Heiko Carstens
wrote:
> These two patches are supposed to "fix" failed order-4 memory
> allocations which have been observed when reading /proc/stat.
> The problem has been observed on s390 as well as on x86.
>
> To address the problem change the seq_file
On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 11:04:50 +0200 Heiko Carstens heiko.carst...@de.ibm.com
wrote:
These two patches are supposed to fix failed order-4 memory
allocations which have been observed when reading /proc/stat.
The problem has been observed on s390 as well as on x86.
To address the problem
These two patches are supposed to "fix" failed order-4 memory
allocations which have been observed when reading /proc/stat.
The problem has been observed on s390 as well as on x86.
To address the problem change the seq_file memory allocations to
fallback to use vmalloc, so that allocations also
These two patches are supposed to fix failed order-4 memory
allocations which have been observed when reading /proc/stat.
The problem has been observed on s390 as well as on x86.
To address the problem change the seq_file memory allocations to
fallback to use vmalloc, so that allocations also
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 07:32:29AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 02:25:21PM +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I'm just wondering why /proc/stat is a single_open() seq_file and not a
> > regular seq_file with an iterator (say 48 online cpus for each
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 07:32:29AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 02:25:21PM +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote:
Hi all,
I'm just wondering why /proc/stat is a single_open() seq_file and not a
regular seq_file with an iterator (say 48 online cpus for each iteration
or
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 02:25:21PM +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm just wondering why /proc/stat is a single_open() seq_file and not a
> regular seq_file with an iterator (say 48 online cpus for each iteration
> or something similar).
>
> Of course, in theory, the "intr" line may
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 02:25:21PM +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote:
Hi all,
I'm just wondering why /proc/stat is a single_open() seq_file and not a
regular seq_file with an iterator (say 48 online cpus for each iteration
or something similar).
Of course, in theory, the intr line may be very
azet; linux-
> ker...@vger.kernel.org; linux-fsde...@vger.kernel.org; Hendrik Brueckner;
> Thorsten Diehl
> Subject: Re: /proc/stat vs. failed order-4 allocation
>
> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 02:25:21PM +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I'm just w
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 02:25:21PM +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm just wondering why /proc/stat is a single_open() seq_file and not a
> regular seq_file with an iterator (say 48 online cpus for each iteration
> or something similar).
Probably because no one sent a patch for it.
Hi all,
I'm just wondering why /proc/stat is a single_open() seq_file and not a
regular seq_file with an iterator (say 48 online cpus for each iteration
or something similar).
Of course, in theory, the "intr" line may be very long as well...
With the current implementation everything must fit
Hi all,
I'm just wondering why /proc/stat is a single_open() seq_file and not a
regular seq_file with an iterator (say 48 online cpus for each iteration
or something similar).
Of course, in theory, the intr line may be very long as well...
With the current implementation everything must fit
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 02:25:21PM +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote:
Hi all,
I'm just wondering why /proc/stat is a single_open() seq_file and not a
regular seq_file with an iterator (say 48 online cpus for each iteration
or something similar).
Probably because no one sent a patch for it. I'm
...@vger.kernel.org; linux-fsde...@vger.kernel.org; Hendrik Brueckner;
Thorsten Diehl
Subject: Re: /proc/stat vs. failed order-4 allocation
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 02:25:21PM +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote:
Hi all,
I'm just wondering why /proc/stat is a single_open() seq_file and not a
regular
24 matches
Mail list logo
