"Adam Litke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 6/12/07, Eric W. Biederman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Adam Litke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Here's another breakage as a result of shared memory stacked files :(
>> >
>> > The NUMA policy for a VMA is determined by checking the following
On 6/12/07, Eric W. Biederman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Adam Litke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Here's another breakage as a result of shared memory stacked files :(
>
> The NUMA policy for a VMA is determined by checking the following (in the
order
> given):
>
> 1) vma->vm_ops->get_policy()
> Can we just double-check the refcounting please?
>
> > index 4fefbad..8d2672d 100644
> > --- a/ipc/shm.c
> > +++ b/ipc/shm.c
> > @@ -254,8 +254,10 @@ struct mempolicy *shm_get_policy(struct vm_area_struct
> > *vma, unsigned long addr)
> >
> > if (sfd->vm_ops->get_policy)
> >
On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 12:20:52AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Does this perhaps need to be:
>> diff --git a/ipc/shm.c b/ipc/shm.c
>> index 4fefbad..8d2672d 100644
>> --- a/ipc/shm.c
>> +++ b/ipc/shm.c
>> @@ -254,8 +254,10 @@ struct mempolicy *shm_get_policy(struct vm_area_struct
>> *vma,
Adam Litke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Here's another breakage as a result of shared memory stacked files :(
>
> The NUMA policy for a VMA is determined by checking the following (in the
> order
> given):
>
> 1) vma->vm_ops->get_policy() (if defined)
> 2) vma->vm_policy (if defined)
> 3)
Adam Litke [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Here's another breakage as a result of shared memory stacked files :(
The NUMA policy for a VMA is determined by checking the following (in the
order
given):
1) vma-vm_ops-get_policy() (if defined)
2) vma-vm_policy (if defined)
3) task-mempolicy (if
On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 12:20:52AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Does this perhaps need to be:
diff --git a/ipc/shm.c b/ipc/shm.c
index 4fefbad..8d2672d 100644
--- a/ipc/shm.c
+++ b/ipc/shm.c
@@ -254,8 +254,10 @@ struct mempolicy *shm_get_policy(struct vm_area_struct
*vma, unsigned long
Can we just double-check the refcounting please?
index 4fefbad..8d2672d 100644
--- a/ipc/shm.c
+++ b/ipc/shm.c
@@ -254,8 +254,10 @@ struct mempolicy *shm_get_policy(struct vm_area_struct
*vma, unsigned long addr)
if (sfd-vm_ops-get_policy)
pol =
On 6/12/07, Eric W. Biederman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Adam Litke [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Here's another breakage as a result of shared memory stacked files :(
The NUMA policy for a VMA is determined by checking the following (in the
order
given):
1) vma-vm_ops-get_policy() (if
Adam Litke [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 6/12/07, Eric W. Biederman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Adam Litke [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Here's another breakage as a result of shared memory stacked files :(
The NUMA policy for a VMA is determined by checking the following (in the
order
On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 09:30:20PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Can we just double-check the refcounting please?
The refcounting for mpol's doesn't look good in general. I'm more
curious as to what releases the refcounts. alloc_page_vma(), for
instance, does get_vma_policy() which eventually
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 16:34:54 -0500 Adam Litke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here's another breakage as a result of shared memory stacked files :(
>
> The NUMA policy for a VMA is determined by checking the following (in the
> order
> given):
>
> 1) vma->vm_ops->get_policy() (if defined)
> 2)
On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 04:34:54PM -0500, Adam Litke wrote:
> Here's another breakage as a result of shared memory stacked files :(
> The NUMA policy for a VMA is determined by checking the following (in
> the order given):
> 1) vma->vm_ops->get_policy() (if defined)
> 2) vma->vm_policy (if
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007, Adam Litke wrote:
> Here's another breakage as a result of shared memory stacked files :(
>
> The NUMA policy for a VMA is determined by checking the following (in the
> order
> given):
>
> 1) vma->vm_ops->get_policy() (if defined)
> 2) vma->vm_policy (if defined)
> 3)
Here's another breakage as a result of shared memory stacked files :(
The NUMA policy for a VMA is determined by checking the following (in the order
given):
1) vma->vm_ops->get_policy() (if defined)
2) vma->vm_policy (if defined)
3) task->mempolicy (if defined)
4) Fall back to default_policy
Here's another breakage as a result of shared memory stacked files :(
The NUMA policy for a VMA is determined by checking the following (in the order
given):
1) vma-vm_ops-get_policy() (if defined)
2) vma-vm_policy (if defined)
3) task-mempolicy (if defined)
4) Fall back to default_policy
By
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007, Adam Litke wrote:
Here's another breakage as a result of shared memory stacked files :(
The NUMA policy for a VMA is determined by checking the following (in the
order
given):
1) vma-vm_ops-get_policy() (if defined)
2) vma-vm_policy (if defined)
3) task-mempolicy
On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 04:34:54PM -0500, Adam Litke wrote:
Here's another breakage as a result of shared memory stacked files :(
The NUMA policy for a VMA is determined by checking the following (in
the order given):
1) vma-vm_ops-get_policy() (if defined)
2) vma-vm_policy (if defined)
3)
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 16:34:54 -0500 Adam Litke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here's another breakage as a result of shared memory stacked files :(
The NUMA policy for a VMA is determined by checking the following (in the
order
given):
1) vma-vm_ops-get_policy() (if defined)
2) vma-vm_policy
On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 09:30:20PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
Can we just double-check the refcounting please?
The refcounting for mpol's doesn't look good in general. I'm more
curious as to what releases the refcounts. alloc_page_vma(), for
instance, does get_vma_policy() which eventually
20 matches
Mail list logo
