On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>
> I'll put pre5 in and try to reproduce the problem (I hitted it while
> running pgbench + shmtest).
I found a case where pre5 will forget to unlock the page_table_lock (in
copy_page_range()), and one place where I had missed the lock altogether
(in
On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>
> Could the IDE one cause corruption ?
Only with broken disks, as far as we know right now. There's been so far
just one report of this problem, and nobody has heard back about which
disk this was.. And it should be noisy about it when it happens -
On Mon, 19 Mar 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >
> > Could the IDE one cause corruption ?
>
> Only with broken disks, as far as we know right now. There's been so far
> just one report of this problem, and nobody has heard back about which
> di
On Mon, 19 Mar 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> There is a 2.4.3-pre5 in the test-directory on ftp.kernel.org.
>
> The complete changelog is appended, but the biggest recent change is the
> mmap_sem change, which I updated with new locking rules for pte/pmd_alloc
> to avoid the race on the act
On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
>
> (ie the patch really isn't ready yet to be included in the
> main kernel ... OTOH, the changes needed to make it ready
> are all trivial and tedious ;))
They are trivial and tedious only if done wrong - which will also add tons
of new places where we
On Mon, 19 Mar 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > Excellent point. We used to do all the looping and re-trying, but it got
> > ripped out a long time ago (and in any case, it historically didn't do
> > SMP, so the old code doesn't really work).
>
> Act
On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> >
> > Besides, the fair semaphores would potentially slow things down, while
> > this potentially speeds things up. So.. It looks obvious enough.
>
> Rik, did you check that {pte,pmd}_alloc are thread safe? At
> least in 2.4.2 they aren't (include/asm-i
On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > There is a 2.4.3-pre5 in the test-directory on ftp.kernel.org.
>
> I can't see it. Where did you hide it?
Ahh. The mirroring is apparently broken. I put my stuff on a faster local
connection to "master.kernel.org", and d
There is a 2.4.3-pre5 in the test-directory on ftp.kernel.org.
The complete changelog is appended, but the biggest recent change is the
mmap_sem change, which I updated with new locking rules for pte/pmd_alloc
to avoid the race on the actual page table build.
This has only been tested on i386 w
On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, Manfred Spraul wrote:
>
> Rik, did you check that {pte,pmd}_alloc are thread safe? At least in
> 2.4.2 they aren't (include/asm-i386/pgalloc.h), and your patch doesn't
> touch pgalloc.
Excellent point. We used to do all the looping and re-trying, but it got
ripped out a lon
On Mon, 19 Mar 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> Excellent point. We used to do all the looping and re-trying, but it got
> ripped out a long time ago (and in any case, it historically didn't do
> SMP, so the old code doesn't really work).
Actually, funnily enough, I see that the old thread-safe
>
> Besides, the fair semaphores would potentially slow things down, while
> this potentially speeds things up. So.. It looks obvious enough.
>
Rik, did you check that {pte,pmd}_alloc are thread safe? At least in
2.4.2 they aren't (include/asm-i386/pgalloc.h), and your patch doesn't
touch pgalloc
> Now the code is beautiful and it might even be bugfree ;)
I'm applying this to my tree - I'm not exactly comfortable with this
during the 2.4.x timeframe, but at the same time I'm even less comfortable
with the current alternative, which is to make the regular semaphores
fairer (we tried it o
13 matches
Mail list logo
