Hi Hugh,
On 03/06/2013 03:40 AM, Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Mon, 4 Mar 2013, Will Huck wrote:
Could you explain me why shmem has more relationship with mempolicy? It seems
that there are many codes in shmem handle mempolicy, but other components in
mm subsystem just have little.
NUMA mempolicy is
Hi Hugh,
On 03/06/2013 03:40 AM, Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Mon, 4 Mar 2013, Will Huck wrote:
Could you explain me why shmem has more relationship with mempolicy? It seems
that there are many codes in shmem handle mempolicy, but other components in
mm subsystem just have little.
NUMA mempolicy is
On Mon, 4 Mar 2013, Will Huck wrote:
>
> Could you explain me why shmem has more relationship with mempolicy? It seems
> that there are many codes in shmem handle mempolicy, but other components in
> mm subsystem just have little.
NUMA mempolicy is mostly handled in mm/mempolicy.c, which
On Mon, 4 Mar 2013, Will Huck wrote:
Could you explain me why shmem has more relationship with mempolicy? It seems
that there are many codes in shmem handle mempolicy, but other components in
mm subsystem just have little.
NUMA mempolicy is mostly handled in mm/mempolicy.c, which services
Hi Hugh,
On 02/21/2013 04:26 AM, Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Tue, 19 Feb 2013, Greg Thelen wrote:
This patch fixes several mempolicy leaks in the tmpfs mount logic.
These leaks are slow - on the order of one object leaked per mount
attempt.
Leak 1 (umount doesn't free mpol allocated in mount):
Hi Hugh,
On 02/21/2013 04:26 AM, Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Tue, 19 Feb 2013, Greg Thelen wrote:
This patch fixes several mempolicy leaks in the tmpfs mount logic.
These leaks are slow - on the order of one object leaked per mount
attempt.
Leak 1 (umount doesn't free mpol allocated in mount):
On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 12:26:26 -0800 (PST)
Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > @@ -2463,19 +2464,23 @@ static int shmem_parse_options(char *options,
> > struct shmem_sb_info *sbinfo,
> > if (!gid_valid(sbinfo->gid))
> > goto bad_val;
> > } else if
On Tue, 19 Feb 2013, Greg Thelen wrote:
> This patch fixes several mempolicy leaks in the tmpfs mount logic.
> These leaks are slow - on the order of one object leaked per mount
> attempt.
>
> Leak 1 (umount doesn't free mpol allocated in mount):
> while true; do
> mount -t tmpfs -o
On Tue, 19 Feb 2013, Greg Thelen wrote:
This patch fixes several mempolicy leaks in the tmpfs mount logic.
These leaks are slow - on the order of one object leaked per mount
attempt.
Leak 1 (umount doesn't free mpol allocated in mount):
while true; do
mount -t tmpfs -o
On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 12:26:26 -0800 (PST)
Hugh Dickins hu...@google.com wrote:
@@ -2463,19 +2464,23 @@ static int shmem_parse_options(char *options,
struct shmem_sb_info *sbinfo,
if (!gid_valid(sbinfo-gid))
goto bad_val;
} else
This patch fixes several mempolicy leaks in the tmpfs mount logic.
These leaks are slow - on the order of one object leaked per mount
attempt.
Leak 1 (umount doesn't free mpol allocated in mount):
while true; do
mount -t tmpfs -o mpol=interleave,size=100M nodev /mnt
umount
This patch fixes several mempolicy leaks in the tmpfs mount logic.
These leaks are slow - on the order of one object leaked per mount
attempt.
Leak 1 (umount doesn't free mpol allocated in mount):
while true; do
mount -t tmpfs -o mpol=interleave,size=100M nodev /mnt
umount
12 matches
Mail list logo
