On 11/08/2016 04:24 PM, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 4:15 AM, Chris Wilson
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 08:56:07AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>> This is how everyone seems to already use them, but let's make that
>>> explicit.
>>
>> Ah, found an exception, vmappe
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 4:15 AM, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 08:56:07AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> This is how everyone seems to already use them, but let's make that
>> explicit.
>
> Ah, found an exception, vmapped stacks:
>
> [ 696.928541] BUG: sleeping function called
Hi Christoph,
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 9:31 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 08:34:40AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>
>> It would be quite awkward for a task stack to get freed from a
>> sleepable context, because the obvious sleepable context is the task
>> itself, and it
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 06:31:12PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 08:34:40AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >
> > It would be quite awkward for a task stack to get freed from a
> > sleepable context, because the obvious sleepable context is the task
> > itself, and it s
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 08:34:40AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> It would be quite awkward for a task stack to get freed from a
> sleepable context, because the obvious sleepable context is the task
> itself, and it still needs its stack. This was true even in the old
> regime when task stack
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 6:05 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 12:15:41PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 08:56:07AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> > This is how everyone seems to already use them, but let's make that
>> > explicit.
>>
>> Ah, found an
On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 08:56:07AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> This is how everyone seems to already use them, but let's make that
> explicit.
Ah, found an exception, vmapped stacks:
[ 696.928541] BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at
mm/vmalloc.c:615
[ 696.928576] in_ato
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 12:15:41PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 08:56:07AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > This is how everyone seems to already use them, but let's make that
> > explicit.
>
> Ah, found an exception, vmapped stacks:
Oh, fun. So if we can't require vfr
On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 11:33:59AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 08:56:07AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > This is how everyone seems to already use them, but let's make that
> > explicit.
>
> mm/page_alloc.c: alloc_large_system_hash() is perhaps the exception to
> the
On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 08:56:07AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> This is how everyone seems to already use them, but let's make that
> explicit.
mm/page_alloc.c: alloc_large_system_hash() is perhaps the exception to
the rule.
-Chris
--
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
This is how everyone seems to already use them, but let's make that
explicit.
Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig
---
mm/vmalloc.c | 7 ++-
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c
index d045a10..9830514 100644
--- a/mm/vmalloc.c
+++ b/mm/vmalloc.
11 matches
Mail list logo