On 3/27/24 14:04, Mirsad Todorovac wrote:
On 3/27/24 11:41, Joao Martins wrote:
On 25/03/2024 13:52, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 12:17:28PM +, Joao Martins wrote:
However, I am not smart enough to figure out why ...
Apparently, from the source, mmap() fails to
On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 06:05:46PM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:
> ASSERT_*() is supposed to exit the test right away. If this
> isn't happening it needs to be debugged.
We know it doesn't work in setup/teardown functions, you can see it in
the code it jumps back and does the teardown again in an
On 27/03/2024 20:04, Mirsad Todorovac wrote:
> On 3/27/24 11:41, Joao Martins wrote:
>> On 25/03/2024 13:52, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 12:17:28PM +, Joao Martins wrote:
> However, I am not smart enough to figure out why ...
>
> Apparently, from the source,
On 3/27/24 10:38, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 03:04:09PM +, Joao Martins wrote:
On 27/03/2024 11:40, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 10:41:52AM +, Joao Martins wrote:
On 25/03/2024 13:52, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 12:17:28PM
On 3/27/24 11:41, Joao Martins wrote:
On 25/03/2024 13:52, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 12:17:28PM +, Joao Martins wrote:
However, I am not smart enough to figure out why ...
Apparently, from the source, mmap() fails to allocate pages on the desired
address:
1746
On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 03:04:09PM +, Joao Martins wrote:
> On 27/03/2024 11:40, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 10:41:52AM +, Joao Martins wrote:
> >> On 25/03/2024 13:52, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 12:17:28PM +, Joao Martins wrote:
> >
On 27/03/2024 11:40, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 10:41:52AM +, Joao Martins wrote:
>> On 25/03/2024 13:52, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 12:17:28PM +, Joao Martins wrote:
> However, I am not smart enough to figure out why ...
>
>
On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 10:41:52AM +, Joao Martins wrote:
> On 25/03/2024 13:52, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 12:17:28PM +, Joao Martins wrote:
> >>> However, I am not smart enough to figure out why ...
> >>>
> >>> Apparently, from the source, mmap() fails to allocate
On 25/03/2024 13:52, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 12:17:28PM +, Joao Martins wrote:
>>> However, I am not smart enough to figure out why ...
>>>
>>> Apparently, from the source, mmap() fails to allocate pages on the desired
>>> address:
>>>
>>> 1746
On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 12:17:28PM +, Joao Martins wrote:
> > However, I am not smart enough to figure out why ...
> >
> > Apparently, from the source, mmap() fails to allocate pages on the desired
> > address:
> >
> > 1746 assert((uintptr_t)self->buffer % HUGEPAGE_SIZE == 0);
> >
On 23/03/2024 20:13, Mirsad Todorovac wrote:
>
>
> On 3/19/24 14:58, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 07:35:40AM +0100, Mirsad Todorovac wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> (This is verified on the second test box.)
>>>
>>> In the most recent 6.8.0 release of torvalds tree kernel with
On 3/19/24 14:58, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 07:35:40AM +0100, Mirsad Todorovac wrote:
Hi,
(This is verified on the second test box.)
In the most recent 6.8.0 release of torvalds tree kernel with selftest configs
on,
process ./iommufd appears to consume 99% of a CPU
On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 07:35:40AM +0100, Mirsad Todorovac wrote:
> Hi,
>
> (This is verified on the second test box.)
>
> In the most recent 6.8.0 release of torvalds tree kernel with selftest
> configs on,
> process ./iommufd appears to consume 99% of a CPU core for quote a while in an
>
Hi,
(This is verified on the second test box.)
In the most recent 6.8.0 release of torvalds tree kernel with selftest configs
on,
process ./iommufd appears to consume 99% of a CPU core for quote a while in an
endless loop:
root 595028816 0 Mar11 pts/200:00:00 make
14 matches
Mail list logo
