On 26.07.19 12:31, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 26-07-19 10:57:52, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 26.07.19 10:44, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> On Fri 26-07-19 10:36:42, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 26.07.19 10:31, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> [...]
> Anyway, my dislike of the device_hotplug_lock pers
On Fri 26-07-19 10:57:52, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 26.07.19 10:44, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Fri 26-07-19 10:36:42, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >> On 26.07.19 10:31, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > [...]
> >>> Anyway, my dislike of the device_hotplug_lock persists. I would really
> >>> love to see it
On 26.07.19 10:44, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 26-07-19 10:36:42, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 26.07.19 10:31, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [...]
>>> Anyway, my dislike of the device_hotplug_lock persists. I would really
>>> love to see it go rather than grow even more to the hotplug code. We
>>> shoul
On Fri 26-07-19 10:36:42, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 26.07.19 10:31, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> > Anyway, my dislike of the device_hotplug_lock persists. I would really
> > love to see it go rather than grow even more to the hotplug code. We
> > should be really striving for mem hotplug interna
On 26.07.19 10:31, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 26-07-19 10:05:58, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 26.07.19 09:57, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> On Thu 25-07-19 22:49:36, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 25.07.19 21:19, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> [...]
> We need to rationalize the locking here, not to ad
On Fri 26-07-19 10:05:58, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 26.07.19 09:57, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Thu 25-07-19 22:49:36, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >> On 25.07.19 21:19, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > [...]
> >>> We need to rationalize the locking here, not to add more hacks.
> >>
> >> No, sorry. The rea
On 26.07.19 09:57, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 25-07-19 22:49:36, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 25.07.19 21:19, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [...]
>>> We need to rationalize the locking here, not to add more hacks.
>>
>> No, sorry. The real hack is calling a function that is *documented* to
>> be called
On Thu 25-07-19 22:49:36, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 25.07.19 21:19, Michal Hocko wrote:
[...]
> > We need to rationalize the locking here, not to add more hacks.
>
> No, sorry. The real hack is calling a function that is *documented* to
> be called under lock without it. That is an optimizatio
On 25.07.19 23:23, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 10:49 PM David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>
>> On 25.07.19 21:19, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> On Thu 25-07-19 16:35:07, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 25.07.19 15:57, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 25-07-19 15:05:02, David Hildenbrand
On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 10:49 PM David Hildenbrand wrote:
>
> On 25.07.19 21:19, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Thu 25-07-19 16:35:07, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >> On 25.07.19 15:57, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >>> On Thu 25-07-19 15:05:02, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 25.07.19 14:56, Michal Hocko wr
On 25.07.19 21:19, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 25-07-19 16:35:07, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 25.07.19 15:57, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> On Thu 25-07-19 15:05:02, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 25.07.19 14:56, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 24-07-19 16:30:17, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> We
On Thu 25-07-19 16:35:07, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 25.07.19 15:57, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Thu 25-07-19 15:05:02, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >> On 25.07.19 14:56, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >>> On Wed 24-07-19 16:30:17, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> We end up calling __add_memory() without the
On 25.07.19 15:57, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 25-07-19 15:05:02, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 25.07.19 14:56, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> On Wed 24-07-19 16:30:17, David Hildenbrand wrote:
We end up calling __add_memory() without the device hotplug lock held.
(I used a local patch to asse
On Thu 25-07-19 15:05:02, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 25.07.19 14:56, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 24-07-19 16:30:17, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >> We end up calling __add_memory() without the device hotplug lock held.
> >> (I used a local patch to assert in __add_memory() that the
> >> device
On 25.07.19 14:56, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 24-07-19 16:30:17, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> We end up calling __add_memory() without the device hotplug lock held.
>> (I used a local patch to assert in __add_memory() that the
>> device_hotplug_lock is held - I might upstream that as well soon)
>
On Wed 24-07-19 16:30:17, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> We end up calling __add_memory() without the device hotplug lock held.
> (I used a local patch to assert in __add_memory() that the
> device_hotplug_lock is held - I might upstream that as well soon)
>
> [ 26.771684]create_memory_bloc
On 25.07.19 11:22, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 11:18 AM Oscar Salvador wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 04:30:17PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> We end up calling __add_memory() without the device hotplug lock held.
>>> (I used a local patch to assert in __add_memo
On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 11:18 AM Oscar Salvador wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 04:30:17PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > We end up calling __add_memory() without the device hotplug lock held.
> > (I used a local patch to assert in __add_memory() that the
> > device_hotplug_lock is held -
On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 04:30:17PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> We end up calling __add_memory() without the device hotplug lock held.
> (I used a local patch to assert in __add_memory() that the
> device_hotplug_lock is held - I might upstream that as well soon)
>
> [ 26.771684]cr
On Wednesday, July 24, 2019 4:30:17 PM CEST David Hildenbrand wrote:
> We end up calling __add_memory() without the device hotplug lock held.
> (I used a local patch to assert in __add_memory() that the
> device_hotplug_lock is held - I might upstream that as well soon)
>
> [ 26.771684]
20 matches
Mail list logo