Hello, Sathyanarayanan.
> > Just to clarify, does it mean that on your setup you have only one area
> > with the
> > 60 size and 0x00 offset?
> No, its 2 areas. with offset (0, 00) and size (a0, 60).
> >
Thank you for clarification, that makes sense to me. I also can
On 7/30/19 3:34 PM, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
Hello, Sathyanarayanan.
I agree with Dave. I don't think this issue is related to NUMA. The problem
here is about the logic we use to find appropriate vm_area that satisfies
the offset and size requirements of pcpu memory allocator.
In my test case
Hello, Sathyanarayanan.
>
> I agree with Dave. I don't think this issue is related to NUMA. The problem
> here is about the logic we use to find appropriate vm_area that satisfies
> the offset and size requirements of pcpu memory allocator.
>
> In my test case, I can reproduce this issue if we m
On 7/30/19 2:55 PM, Dennis Zhou wrote:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 02:13:25PM -0700, sathyanarayanan kuppuswamy wrote:
On 7/30/19 1:54 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
On 7/30/19 1:46 PM, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
+ /*
+* If required width exeeds current VA block, move
+
On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 02:13:25PM -0700, sathyanarayanan kuppuswamy wrote:
>
> On 7/30/19 1:54 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > On 7/30/19 1:46 PM, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > > > + /*
> > > > +* If required width exeeds current VA block, move
> > > > +* ba
On 7/30/19 1:54 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
On 7/30/19 1:46 PM, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
+ /*
+* If required width exeeds current VA block, move
+* base downwards and then recheck.
+*/
+ if (base + end > va->va_end) {
+
On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 01:54:06PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 7/30/19 1:46 PM, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> >> + /*
> >> + * If required width exeeds current VA block, move
> >> + * base downwards and then recheck.
> >> + */
> >> + if (base + end > v
On 7/30/19 1:46 PM, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
>> +/*
>> + * If required width exeeds current VA block, move
>> + * base downwards and then recheck.
>> + */
>> +if (base + end > va->va_end) {
>> +base = pvm_determine_end_f
On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 04:21:39PM -0700,
sathyanarayanan.kuppusw...@linux.intel.com wrote:
> From: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan
>
> Recent changes to the vmalloc code by Commit 68ad4a330433
> ("mm/vmalloc.c: keep track of free blocks for vmap allocation") can
> cause spurious percpu allocation fa
9 matches
Mail list logo