On 09/04, Hugh Dickins wrote:
>
> On Thu, 4 Sep 2014, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 09/04, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 06:08:19PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > >
> > > > And a stupid (really, I don't understand this code) question:
> > > >
> > > > /* for example, ksm
On Thu, 4 Sep 2014, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 09/04, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 06:08:19PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > > And a stupid (really, I don't understand this code) question:
> > >
> > > /* for example, ksmd faulting in a user's mm */
> > > if (!p->mm)
> >
On 09/04, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 06:08:19PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> > And a stupid (really, I don't understand this code) question:
> >
> > /* for example, ksmd faulting in a user's mm */
> > if (!p->mm)
> > return;
>
> In general kernel thread
On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 06:08:19PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 09/02, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > The usage of TASK_DEAD in task_numa_fault() is wrong in any case.
>
> Rik, I can't understand why task_numa_fault() needs this check at all,
> but "if (p->state == TASK_DEAD)" looks certainly wr
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/03/2014 12:08 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 09/02, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>>
>> The usage of TASK_DEAD in task_numa_fault() is wrong in any
>> case.
>
> Rik, I can't understand why task_numa_fault() needs this check at
> all, but "if (p->state ==
On 09/02, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> The usage of TASK_DEAD in task_numa_fault() is wrong in any case.
Rik, I can't understand why task_numa_fault() needs this check at all,
but "if (p->state == TASK_DEAD)" looks certainly wrong. You could replace
this check with BUG_ON(p->state == TASK_DEAD). Perha
6 matches
Mail list logo