On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 07:24:34AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > 1) this is not done under a lock, so the non-atomic ++/-- is racy if
> > > there are multiple swapons/swapoffs running concurrently on the same
> > > xprt. Shouldn't those use an atomic?
> > >
> >
> > It would be more appropriate
On Thu, 28 May 2015 10:56:14 -0400
Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 10:20 AM, Jerome Marchand wrote:
> > On 05/28/2015 01:53 PM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> >> On Tue, 26 May 2015 15:20:46 +0200
> >> Jerome Marchand wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Commit dad2b015 added an rcu read lock around
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 10:20 AM, Jerome Marchand wrote:
> On 05/28/2015 01:53 PM, Jeff Layton wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 May 2015 15:20:46 +0200
>> Jerome Marchand wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Commit dad2b015 added an rcu read lock around the call to xs_swapper()
>>> in nfs_activate()/deactivate(), which can sle
On 05/28/2015 01:53 PM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Tue, 26 May 2015 15:20:46 +0200
> Jerome Marchand wrote:
>
>>
>> Commit dad2b015 added an rcu read lock around the call to xs_swapper()
>> in nfs_activate()/deactivate(), which can sleep, thus raising a bug at
>> each swapon and swapoff over NFS.
>>
On Tue, 26 May 2015 15:20:46 +0200
Jerome Marchand wrote:
>
> Commit dad2b015 added an rcu read lock around the call to xs_swapper()
> in nfs_activate()/deactivate(), which can sleep, thus raising a bug at
> each swapon and swapoff over NFS.
> I'm not sure if this is related or not, but swapoff
On Thu, 28 May 2015 09:26:19 +0100
Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 09:29:29PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > On Tue, 26 May 2015 09:56:14 -0400
> > Jeff Layton wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 26 May 2015 15:20:46 +0200
> > > Jerome Marchand wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Commit dad2b015 ad
On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 09:29:29PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Tue, 26 May 2015 09:56:14 -0400
> Jeff Layton wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 26 May 2015 15:20:46 +0200
> > Jerome Marchand wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Commit dad2b015 added an rcu read lock around the call to xs_swapper()
> > > in nfs_activat
On Tue, 26 May 2015 09:56:14 -0400
Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Tue, 26 May 2015 15:20:46 +0200
> Jerome Marchand wrote:
>
> >
> > Commit dad2b015 added an rcu read lock around the call to xs_swapper()
> > in nfs_activate()/deactivate(), which can sleep, thus raising a bug at
> > each swapon and sw
On Tue, 26 May 2015 15:20:46 +0200
Jerome Marchand wrote:
>
> Commit dad2b015 added an rcu read lock around the call to xs_swapper()
> in nfs_activate()/deactivate(), which can sleep, thus raising a bug at
> each swapon and swapoff over NFS.
> I'm not sure if this is related or not, but swapoff
Commit dad2b015 added an rcu read lock around the call to xs_swapper()
in nfs_activate()/deactivate(), which can sleep, thus raising a bug at
each swapon and swapoff over NFS.
I'm not sure if this is related or not, but swapoff also triggers the
WARN_ON(sk->sk_forward_alloc) in sk_clear_memalloc()
10 matches
Mail list logo