On Wed 13-08-14 17:26:48, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 2:36 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 12-08-14 17:47:02, Cong Wang wrote:
> > [...]
> >> Does the following updated patch make any sense to you? If not, I will just
> >> drop it.
> >
> > Not really to be honest. I do not see wh
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 2:36 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 12-08-14 17:47:02, Cong Wang wrote:
> [...]
>> Does the following updated patch make any sense to you? If not, I will just
>> drop it.
>
> Not really to be honest. I do not see what problem you are trying to fix.
>
In my case, a page f
On Tue 12-08-14 17:47:02, Cong Wang wrote:
[...]
> Does the following updated patch make any sense to you? If not, I will just
> drop it.
Not really to be honest. I do not see what problem you are trying to fix.
> diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/fault.c b/arch/x86/mm/fault.c
> index a241946..8c0a7d8 100
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 5:09 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 11-08-14 17:53:55, Cong Wang wrote:
>> When a process triggers a page fault and kernel keeps
>> trying to retry the fault, there is no chance for this process
>> to be frozen, so the freeze request will always be pending.
>
> The retry
On Mon 11-08-14 17:53:55, Cong Wang wrote:
> When a process triggers a page fault and kernel keeps
> trying to retry the fault, there is no chance for this process
> to be frozen, so the freeze request will always be pending.
The retry cannot happen indefinitely, no?
Besides that the patch is bro
When a process triggers a page fault and kernel keeps
trying to retry the fault, there is no chance for this process
to be frozen, so the freeze request will always be pending.
This patch lets the page fault handler check pending
freeze request and freeze current process if so.
Cc: Thomas Gleixne
6 matches
Mail list logo
