On Sun, Jan 28 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Jan 2001, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >
> > How about this instead?
>
> I really don't like this one. It will basically re-introduce the old
> behaviour of waking people up in a trickle, as far as I can tell. The
> reason we want the batching is
On Sun, 28 Jan 2001, Jens Axboe wrote:
>
> How about this instead?
I really don't like this one. It will basically re-introduce the old
behaviour of waking people up in a trickle, as far as I can tell. The
reason we want the batching is to make people have more requests to sort
in the
On Sun, Jan 28 2001, Lorenzo Allegrucci wrote:
> >Ho humm. Jens: imagine that you have more people waiting for requests than
> >"batchcount". Further, imagine that you have multiple requests finishing
> >at the same time. Not unlikely. Now, imagine that one request finishes,
> >and causes
At 15.40 27/01/01 -0800, you wrote:
>
>
>On Sat, 27 Jan 2001, Lorenzo Allegrucci wrote:
>>
>> A trivial "while(1) fork()" is enough to trigger it.
>> "mem=32M" by lilo, ulimit -u is 1024.
>
>Hmm.. This does not look like a VM deadlock - it looks like some IO
>request is waiting forever on
At 15.40 27/01/01 -0800, you wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jan 2001, Lorenzo Allegrucci wrote:
A trivial "while(1) fork()" is enough to trigger it.
"mem=32M" by lilo, ulimit -u is 1024.
Hmm.. This does not look like a VM deadlock - it looks like some IO
request is waiting forever on
On Sun, 28 Jan 2001, Jens Axboe wrote:
How about this instead?
I really don't like this one. It will basically re-introduce the old
behaviour of waking people up in a trickle, as far as I can tell. The
reason we want the batching is to make people have more requests to sort
in the elevator,
On Sun, Jan 28 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jan 2001, Jens Axboe wrote:
How about this instead?
I really don't like this one. It will basically re-introduce the old
behaviour of waking people up in a trickle, as far as I can tell. The
reason we want the batching is to make
On Sun, 28 Jan 2001, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 27 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > What was the trace of this? Just curious, the below case outlined by
> > > Linus should be pretty generic, but I'd still like to know what
> > > can lead to this condition.
> >
> > It was posted on
On Sat, Jan 27 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > What was the trace of this? Just curious, the below case outlined by
> > Linus should be pretty generic, but I'd still like to know what
> > can lead to this condition.
>
> It was posted on linux-kernel - I don't save the dang things because I
>
On Sun, 28 Jan 2001, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >
> > So what happens is that somebody takes a page fault (and gets the mm
> > lock), tries to read something in, and never gets anything back, thus
> > leaving the MM locked.
>
> What was the trace of this? Just curious, the below case outlined by
>
On Sun, 28 Jan 2001, Jens Axboe wrote:
So what happens is that somebody takes a page fault (and gets the mm
lock), tries to read something in, and never gets anything back, thus
leaving the MM locked.
What was the trace of this? Just curious, the below case outlined by
Linus should
On Sat, Jan 27 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
What was the trace of this? Just curious, the below case outlined by
Linus should be pretty generic, but I'd still like to know what
can lead to this condition.
It was posted on linux-kernel - I don't save the dang things because I
have too
On Sun, 28 Jan 2001, Jens Axboe wrote:
On Sat, Jan 27 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
What was the trace of this? Just curious, the below case outlined by
Linus should be pretty generic, but I'd still like to know what
can lead to this condition.
It was posted on linux-kernel - I
13 matches
Mail list logo
