On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 03:05:41PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > Thanks for the report. There is already a fix for this in -mm:
> > http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm-commits=139180637114625=2
> >
> > It was merged on the 7th, so it should show up in -next... any day
> > now?
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 03:05:41PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
Johannes Weiner wrote:
Thanks for the report. There is already a fix for this in -mm:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm-commitsm=139180637114625w=2
It was merged on the 7th, so it should show up in -next... any day
now?
That
Johannes Weiner wrote:
> Thanks for the report. There is already a fix for this in -mm:
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm-commits=139180637114625=2
>
> It was merged on the 7th, so it should show up in -next... any day
> now?
That patch solved this bproblem but breaks build instead.
ERROR:
Hi Andrew,
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 14:24:07 -0800 Andrew Morton
wrote:
>
> On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 17:11:26 -0500 Johannes Weiner wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:21:17PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > > Hello.
> > >
> > > I got a lockdep warning shown below, and the bad commit seems to be
>
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 17:11:26 -0500 Johannes Weiner wrote:
> Hi Tetsuo,
>
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:21:17PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > Hello.
> >
> > I got a lockdep warning shown below, and the bad commit seems to be de055616
> > \"mm: keep page cache radix tree nodes in check\" as of
Hi Tetsuo,
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:21:17PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I got a lockdep warning shown below, and the bad commit seems to be de055616
> \"mm: keep page cache radix tree nodes in check\" as of next-20140212
> on linux-next.git.
Thanks for the report. There is
Hi Tetsuo,
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:21:17PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
Hello.
I got a lockdep warning shown below, and the bad commit seems to be de055616
\mm: keep page cache radix tree nodes in check\ as of next-20140212
on linux-next.git.
Thanks for the report. There is already a fix
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 17:11:26 -0500 Johannes Weiner han...@cmpxchg.org wrote:
Hi Tetsuo,
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:21:17PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
Hello.
I got a lockdep warning shown below, and the bad commit seems to be de055616
\mm: keep page cache radix tree nodes in check\ as
Hi Andrew,
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 14:24:07 -0800 Andrew Morton a...@linux-foundation.org
wrote:
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 17:11:26 -0500 Johannes Weiner han...@cmpxchg.org wrote:
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:21:17PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
Hello.
I got a lockdep warning shown below, and
Johannes Weiner wrote:
Thanks for the report. There is already a fix for this in -mm:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm-commitsm=139180637114625w=2
It was merged on the 7th, so it should show up in -next... any day
now?
That patch solved this bproblem but breaks build instead.
ERROR:
Hello.
I got a lockdep warning shown below, and the bad commit seems to be de055616
\"mm: keep page cache radix tree nodes in check\" as of next-20140212
on linux-next.git.
Regards.
=
[ INFO: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected
Hello.
I got a lockdep warning shown below, and the bad commit seems to be de055616
\mm: keep page cache radix tree nodes in check\ as of next-20140212
on linux-next.git.
Regards.
=
[ INFO: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected ]
On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 03:14:24PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Feb 2014 19:53:32 -0500 Johannes Weiner wrote:
>
> > o Fix vmstat build problems on UP (Fengguang Wu's build bot)
> >
> > o Clarify why optimistic radix_tree_node->private_list link checking
> > is safe without
On Mon, 3 Feb 2014 19:53:32 -0500 Johannes Weiner wrote:
> o Fix vmstat build problems on UP (Fengguang Wu's build bot)
>
> o Clarify why optimistic radix_tree_node->private_list link checking
> is safe without holding the list_lru lock (Dave Chinner)
>
> o Assert locking balance when the
On Mon, 3 Feb 2014 19:53:32 -0500 Johannes Weiner han...@cmpxchg.org wrote:
o Fix vmstat build problems on UP (Fengguang Wu's build bot)
o Clarify why optimistic radix_tree_node-private_list link checking
is safe without holding the list_lru lock (Dave Chinner)
o Assert locking balance
On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 03:14:24PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 3 Feb 2014 19:53:32 -0500 Johannes Weiner han...@cmpxchg.org wrote:
o Fix vmstat build problems on UP (Fengguang Wu's build bot)
o Clarify why optimistic radix_tree_node-private_list link checking
is safe without
Changes in this revision
o Fix vmstat build problems on UP (Fengguang Wu's build bot)
o Clarify why optimistic radix_tree_node->private_list link checking
is safe without holding the list_lru lock (Dave Chinner)
o Assert locking balance when the list_lru isolator says it dropped
the
Changes in this revision
o Fix vmstat build problems on UP (Fengguang Wu's build bot)
o Clarify why optimistic radix_tree_node-private_list link checking
is safe without holding the list_lru lock (Dave Chinner)
o Assert locking balance when the list_lru isolator says it dropped
the
18 matches
Mail list logo